There was found an irrational fear of imaginary Witches, now we have irrational fear of propagandized terrorists. (911, preemptive wars)  Then torture was used to extract confessions, now “enhanced interrogation”( torture) is used to extract confessions (Patriot Acts). Then a person could be arrested and sent to the dungeon for undetermined lengths without due process of law, now a person can be arrested and detained indefinitely without due process (Military Commission Act nullifying Habeas Corpus and the National Defense Authorization Act 2012)

Then the military was used to enforce laws, now the military can be used to enforce domestic laws, as well as martial law (John Warner National Defense Authorization Act 2007).  Then a person could be put to death on the whim of the ruler, now a person can be assassinated on the whim of the ruler (Obama/Anwar al-Awaki).

Then the ruler had his own court and was never found guilty of anything, now the ruler is never even questioned by his court, therefore never found guilty of anything (Bush/illegal war, Obama/illegal war and eligibility for presidency).  Then the ruler lived in lavish luxury, the finest clothing, jewelry, cuisine, none of which he earned, now the ruler lives in even more lavish luxury doing nothing to earn it honestly.

Then the ruler travelled by the finest of carriages, noblest of steeds, surrounded by knights/guards of the fiercest, now the ruler flies in numerous extravagant, finely appointed Jets almost on a daily basis, surrounded by untold guards with the highest tech, expensive equipment imaginable.

Then the ruler entertained with lavish, extravagant parties and sorties, now the ruler entertains with unbelievable abandon and piles of confiscated cash.

All this was and is done with total disdain for the serfs who provide the wherewithal that makes that lifestyle possible.  The serfs were/are to ask no questions, submit to whatever indignities they are subjected (TSA), fork over their hard-earned money (IRS), send their children to fight senseless wars, and if they don’t, they will be punished severely, even unto death.

Welcome to the new Dark Ages.

CBS News‘ Scott Pelley appears to be one of the very few American journalists bothered by, or even interested in, the fact that President Obama has asserted and exercised the power to target U.S. citizens for execution-by-CIA without a shred of due process and far from any battlefield. It was Pelley who deftly interrogated the GOP presidential candidates at a November debate about the propriety of due-process-free assassinations, prompting Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Michele Bachmann to applaud President Obama for assassinating U.S. citizen Anwar Awlaki (just as Rick Perry, Dick and Liz Cheney, and Bill Kristol had done). Last night, Pelley did the same when he interviewed Defense Secretary and former CIA chief Leon Panetta on 60 Minutes. It’s well worth watching this three-minute clip because, although Panetta doesn’t say much that is new (he simply asserts the standard slogans and unproven assertions that Obama defenders on this topic always assert), watching a top Obama official, under decent questioning, defend the power to target U.S. citizens for assassination viscerally conveys the rigidly authoritarian mindset driving all of this:

Read the rest at this link.

Just before the holidays, I walked into my local Wells Fargo bank to cash a small birthday check one of my sisters gave to me. Imagine my surprise when the teller informed me my small savings account was closed. I told her she was mistaken, and asked her to please check again; I knew I had about $800 in the account and I never use the ATM and don’t even have an ATM card. So she looked again and said she was sorry.

Empty. Damn.

So I went home and called my brother who shared the account. He looked up the account online and said all $800 was withdrawn and that a lien was put against my hard-earned dollars by the state of California, allegedly for back taxes owed in 1998. At the time, I lived in California but never worked there. I worked in Alaska, so I wondered how California felt entitled to go into my account and just take my money. Later I got my paper statement from Well Fargo and this is what it said. 

11/ 9   Ending Daily Balance: $805.87

11/ 16  Legal Order To Withhold:   $705.87

11/ 16  Legal Processing Fee: $100.00

Ending Balance on 11/ 30:     $0.00

DAMN.

About a week later, I found myself in California visiting relatives. As I drove along I-405, I noticed a huge billboard for Wells Fargo. “You’ll Know When You’ve Been Bad or Good.” I smiled to myself. The Too Big to Fail Banks are also home to the Too Big To Jail bankers and their DC enablers. People are robbed blind every day, in broad daylight, as they say. 

After WF allowed the plunder of my account, they sent me lots of nice letters in the mail. One even stated: “With you when the season calls for celebrating” and assuring me that they were on my side to keep my credit rating strong, etc. 

I like California, I really do. A great, golden state with lots of upside, California is part of our mythical, historical, myth-making America. Unfortunately, like a lot of states, California is basically bankrupt.

About the same time California got the legal “right” to empty my account, one of California’s public officials, decided to pepper spray peaceful protestors at the University of California at Davis. Seems the campus police chief, Annette Spicuzza, who is basically a taxpayer-subsidized public servant for a bankrupt state, earns $140,000 PER YEAR. So in a way, my stolen $800 went to pay Annette the equivalent of 1-2 days of her salary. Must be tough fighting crime at a California campus. Not long after that incident, Annette was put on suspended (paid) leave. No money was taken from her account. 

They Stole His Money Too 

About the same time my account was emptied to pay police chief Annette, somebody decided to steal more than a billion dollars from the private, segregated accounts of 600,000 investors at MF Global. One of those allegedly secure accounts belonged to Gerald Celente. Seems Gerald was about to take delivery of a large amount of precious metal, which he had paid in full to acquire. Instead, at the last moment, his money and his metal disappeared, along with the so-called secured funds of some 600,000 other investors at MFG. 

Seems the head of MF Global, Jon “The Don” Corzine, simply pleaded ignorance and washed his hands of the entire, blatant, broad-daylight embezzlement. Much like Jerry Sandusky washed his hands of the whole pedophile scandal at Penn State University. Corzine and Sandusky got away with screwing little people, unlike Bernie Madoff, who swindled the wrong BIG people. Corzine has BIG, connected friends and so Corzine continues to walk free today. In a Kleptocracy, you can steal with impunity IF you steal from powerless little people and are protected by other powerful BIG people like yourself.  

What? You didn’t realize you and your kids are being robbed and raped daily? Eisenhower stated it in pure English for those trusting Americans who have a difficult time understanding their native language: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.”

Theft.

So my meager $800 goes to pay the SWAT team of pepper sprayers at UC Davis, uniformed officers who should have called in with “blue flu.” Meanwhile, YOUR hard-earned taxpayer dollars goes to pay the $2 billion for the Egyptian thugs who beat up the “blue bra girl” and killed hundreds of other peaceful protestors. And your children’s accounts are emptied of $2 billion to pay for the Israeli special forces who killed some peaceful protestors on a ship heading to Gaza, still in international waters. Your stolen tax payer dollars also pay for the SWAT team that killed an American veteran here in Tucson, Arizona. Shot dozens of times in cold blood and left to die. Theft and murder on a grand scale in broad daylight and no one held accountable. 

They Stole Her Money Too 

When a Kleptocracy spins completely out of control, as this American Kleptocracy appears to be doing, ordinary people begin to lose ALL confidence in the swindle no matter what political party the swindlers claim to represent. Once the confidence is lost, once the Con game is open and exposed, the game collapses. Soon, enough people begin to sound the alarm, the rigged game is over. Swindler’s List suddenly becomes a blacklist of con artists to avoid. 

About the same time Gerald’s account was stolen, along with another half million investors, a woman named Ann Barnhardt, a small trader in agricultural futures, wrote her clients this letter.

“Dear Clients, Industry Colleagues and Friends of Barnhardt Capital Management. It is with regret and unflinching moral certainty that I announce that Barnhardt Capital Management has ceased operations. After six years of operating as an independent introducing brokerage, and eight years of employment as a broker before that, I found myself, this morning, for the first time since I was 20 years old, watching the futures and options markets open not as a participant, but as a mere spectator.

“The reason for my decision to pull the plug was excruciatingly simple: I could no longer tell my clients that their monies and positions were safe in the futures and options markets – because they are not. And this goes not just for my clients, but for every futures and options account in the United States. The entire system has been utterly destroyed by the MF Global collapse. Given this sad reality, I could not in good conscience take one more step as a commodity broker, soliciting trades that I knew were unsafe or holding funds that I knew to be in jeopardy.”

Their money was stolen. Her livelihood was stolen. Your children’s future was stolen. In a kleptocracy, theft is the First Commandment. Denial of justice is the Second.

The single silver lining in this whole litany of theft is that the Powers That Be have probably picked the two best worst people to swindle. Gerald and Ann resemble a couple of pit bulls, and you can hear and heed their words on a hundred videos. At least until the kleptocrats shut the Internet down completely.

Postscript: The huge concerted effort to discredit Constitutionalists and sound money advocates like Ron Paul continues on a regular basis. Recently, one columnist named Kevin Drum went so far as to accuse Ron of being “a full-bore crank” and in favor of “gold-buggery” (sic). As if Ron was a sidekick of Jerry Sandusky in the pedophile scandal. Gold buggery = boy buggery, right?

I’m surprised the mainstream media hasn’t somehow linked Ron Paul to Jon Benet Ramsey’s disappearance or the Bernie Madoff missing billions. Give them enough time and they might.

Last weekend, Republican voters in South Carolina picked the candidate they want to be the GOP standard bearer for the November elections: Newt Gingrich. Newt Gingrich? Really? What did I miss? Or better, what did Republican voters in South Carolina miss?

What is not lost to virtually everyone who understands national politics is the fact that there is perhaps no State in the union where evangelical Christians have more influence within the State Republican Party than in South Carolina. For example, Greenville, South Carolina, is home to what could be regarded as the flagship university of evangelicalism, Bob Jones University. There are probably more evangelical churches, Christian schools, mission organizations, etc., per square mile in South Carolina than any State in the country. And the vast majority of them are politically active in GOP politics. So, when a GOP Presidential candidate wins South Carolina, you can be absolutely certain that he or she did so with the support and blessing from a sizeable number of evangelical Christians (and pastors) in the State.

In all candor, understanding the power and influence of evangelical Christianity in South Carolina Republican politics, Newt Gingrich’s victory in that State last week is extremely difficult for this writer to digest. I cannot think of a candidate that is more reprehensible to the values and principles that born-again Christians claim to embrace than Newt Gingrich!

Newt Gingrich? Really?

Have Christians (and other conservatives) had complete and total memory failure? To what problem could Newt Gingrich possibly be the solution (unless it’s the problem of Gold Diggers running out of good looking rich guys to sleep with)?

If one believes that the problem is out-of-control government trampling our Bill of Rights, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the lack of Christian morals among our civil magistrates, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the slaughtering of over 50 million innocent unborn babies, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes that the problem is honesty and integrity in the White House, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes that the problem is out-of-control federal spending, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the United States catering to the evil machinations of the Security Council of the United Nations, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is more and more outsourcing of America’s manufacturing jobs and products, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes that the problem is ever-burgeoning deficit spending, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the banksters at the Federal Reserve, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is illegal immigration, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the United States gives away far too much foreign aid, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution.

Newt Gingrich? Really?

In the first place, Newt Gingrich is the personification of the word “globalist.” Gingrich is a longtime member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Gingrich never saw a globalist agenda-item that he did not enthusiastically support such as: NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, FTAA, the North American Union (by whatever name it’s called at the moment), the NAFTA Superhighway, ad infinitum. Gingrich is as much committed to open borders as is Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or Barack Obama. Gingrich is as committed to the advancement of the George Soros-sponsored Agenda 21 “green” initiatives as any person living today.

In the second place, Newt Gingrich’s actual record is fundamentally opposite his constant “conservative” rhetoric. Writing for The New American magazine, William Jasper reported, “During his 16 years in Congress, Gingrich has inveighed vociferously against the evils of the New Deal/Great Society welfare state–while voting for every kind of welfare program imaginable: for the elderly, children, the ‘homeless,’ businessmen, farmers, bankers, left-wing broadcasters, etc. Those votes include: March 21, 1991–$40 billion to begin the unconstitutional bailout of failed savings and loan institutions; June 26, 1991–$52.6 billion for agriculture program subsidies, and food stamps; October 5, 1992–$66.5 billion for housing and community development; September 22, 1994–$250.6 billion in appropriations for the Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education.”

And let’s not forget that, after orchestrating the “Contract With America” that swept the GOP into a majority in both houses of Congress in 1994 (and promising to reduce the size and scope of the federal government and even eliminate five federal departments, including the Department of Education), it was Newt Gingrich that quickly abandoned those promises–which led to his eventual resignation following the 1996 elections, when voters fled the GOP in disgust after Gingrich’s compromises.

William Jasper also reported, “Considering these and other votes against sound fiscal policy, it is not surprising that Gingrich’s spendthrift ways have carried over into his personal finances. The 1992 House banking scandal revealed that Gingrich has run 22 overdrafts on his checking account, and this in spite of having voted himself a huge pay raise and having a taxpayer-provided, chauffeur-driven car. Nor is it surprising that his rating from the National Taxpayers Union during the latest session of Congress (the 103rd) was a meager 75 percent. His tax-and-spend record over the years on votes tabulated by Tax Reform Immediately (TRIM) has so often contradicted his rhetoric that the National Director of TRIM James Toft was prompted to remark: ‘Professor Gingrich hopefully will never be called upon to teach a course in the proper role of our federal government. His rare votes against bloated big government usually have been prompted by the partisan wrangling of the moment, not by any great respect for, or understanding of, the Constitution.’”

See William Jasper’s report at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/73600337/Speaker-for-Whom-12Dec1994

In the third place, if the current trend toward nationalizing law enforcement and turning America into a police state disturbs you, Newt Gingrich is the last person in the world you would want to elect President of the United States.

Devvy Kidd writes, “On October 22, 1991, Gingrich voted for an amendment to the federal crime bill offered by Rep. David McCurdy (D-OK) to establish a National Police Corps. Although he didn’t vote for the $30-billion Clinton crime bill of 1994, he resurrected it and helped make passage possible. As Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY), one of Newt’s cheerleaders, explained to Michael Kinsley on CNN’s Crossfire, ‘If it wasn’t for Newt Gingrich, you wouldn’t have a crime bill.’

“Indeed. The Gingrich-led opposition ‘threw’ the game, failing to challenge the bill’s fundamental flaw–that the federal government has no constitutional authority to take over state and local crime fighting duties–and focused instead on ‘pork’ in the bill. ‘That crime bill stank to high heaven,’ charged Pat Buchanan. ‘It federalizes crimes such as spousal abuse, giving the feds police power the Constitution reserves to the states.’”

See Devvy Kidds’ report at:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd449.htm

The contents of Newt Gingrich’s record in this report are merely the tip of the old proverbial iceberg. Gingrich has so many skeletons in his closet; he makes Herman Cain look like the angel Gabriel. And this is the man Christians and conservatives in South Carolina want to be the next President of the United States?

Newt Gingrich? Really?

Ok, now let’s really get down to brass tacks. One reason why Gingrich won in South Carolina (and might win in Florida) is because many Christian voters will not vote for Mitt Romney, because Romney is a Mormon; and they won’t vote for Ron Paul, because he’s–well–Ron Paul.

Of course, many Christians voted for Rick Santorum, which explains his third-place finish. Santorum has built his entire campaign on trying to convince Christian conservatives that he is “their” man by talking up the hot button issues that social conservatives tend to focus on. But Santorum is just another G.W. Bush-type big-government neocon whose Senatorial record clearly shows that he votes with the big-government agenda the vast majority of the time. Some could even argue that Santorum is the elitists “conservative” Manchurian Candidate to pull votes away from Ron Paul. Dr. Paul is the one man the elitists fear the most and will do anything to defeat.

Now, to Mitt Romney. Let me go on record, I won’t vote for Mitt Romney either, but it has nothing to do with him being a Mormon. Absolutely nothing! I know a Mormon man who was a candidate for the US House of Representatives in the State of Utah whom I would support and vote for (for any office) in a heartbeat. His name is Scott Bradley. Scott is one of the most principled constitutionalists I have ever met.

Whether a candidate for public office is a Mormon, Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, or Pentecostal is absolutely immaterial to whether or not I vote for him or her. The primary responsibility of a President (or any other civil magistrate) is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States and to secure the rights and liberties of the American citizenry. That’s it! It is no skin off my nose where he or she goes to church, or even if he or she goes to church. It doesn’t matter to a tinker’s dam whether they quote scripture or claim to be a Christian. What matters is that he or she honors their oath of office to defend the Constitution and the people’s liberties.

And as everyone should know by now, Mitt Romney’s track record in Massachusetts, from a constitutional point of reference, is absolutely abysmal. In fact, Romney’s Massachusetts’s health care monstrosity was the model for ObamaCare. In almost every discernable constitutional criterion, Mitt Romney falls short. And that’s why I won’t vote for Mitt Romney! In fact, I won’t vote for Mitt Romney for the exact same reason I won’t vote for Newt Gingrich. (To his credit, however, at least Mitt Romney doesn’t have a passel of bimbos hiding under his bed.)

I have said it all over America, and I’ll say it again: I would rather vote for an unbeliever who will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States than vote for a believer who will not preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Next, let’s talk about Ron Paul. Many Christians all over America have foolishly rejected the candidacy of Ron Paul. They have done this for reasons which I will outline here.

“Ron Paul is not pro-life,” many Christians purport.

Of course, this statement is laughable. As a long-term US House member from Texas, Ron Paul has repeatedly introduced the Sanctity of Life Act. The so-called pro-life GOP in Washington, D.C., had several opportunities to pass this Act when it held power in both houses of Congress and the White House from 2000-2006.

Had it passed, Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act would have done two things: 1) it would have declared unborn babies to be human beings under the law, 2) it would have removed abortion from the jurisdiction of the Court under Article. 3. Section. 2. of the US Constitution. This would have effectively overturned the infamous Roe. v. Wade Supreme Court decision.

As an OB/GYN physician, Dr. Paul has never performed an abortion; but he has delivered more than 4000 babies; he has repeatedly introduced the Sanctity of Life Act in the US Congress–but he’s not “pro-life”?

Newt Gingrich, as speaker of the House, did absolutely nothing to defund Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers domestically and internationally from receiving US taxpayer dollars. In fact, while Gingrich was Speaker of the House, taxpayer funding for abortion providers increased dramatically! Neither has he ever supported or promoted the Sanctity of Life Act, but since he “says” he’s pro-life, many Christians vote for Gingrich and not Paul?

Is something wrong with this picture or what?

“I cannot support Ron Paul because he says he doesn’t know whether homosexuality is a sin or not,” say many Christians.

Most readers know that I have been a minister of the Gospel for over 35 years. My convictions regarding the sinfulness of homosexuality are well known. I say that so you understand where I’m coming from when I say that whether or not Ron Paul has a personal question as to whether homosexuality is a religious or biological issue has absolutely nothing to do with his fitness to be President of the United States. Absolutely nothing! We are electing a commander-in-chief, not a theologian-in-chief.

Dr. Paul’s personal religious belief is not the issue. The issue is his fidelity to constitutional government. What Christians seemingly do not understand is that constitutional government does more to protect their God-given Natural rights than all of the religious rhetoric of all the politicians of the entire country put together!

Dr. Paul understands the nature of government and the nature of liberty. And he is committed to returning government to its rightful jurisdictional authority Dr. Paul knows that the states and local communities are the best protectors of the liberties and the values of the people–including the values relating to aberrant sexual behavior within those communities and states–NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. (Listening to many so-called “conservatives,” one may get the idea that they would be fine with doing away with independent statehood altogether and letting the central government in Washington, D.C., run everything. Thankfully, our Founding Fathers were a wiser lot and emphatically left the bulk of governing authority to the states.) For example, if the State of Nevada wants to legalize prostitution, that’s Nevada’s business. And if Montana wants to make prostitution illegal, that is Montana’s business. If Florida wants to make medical marijuana illegal, that’s Florida’s business. If, however, Montana wants to legalize medical marijuana, that’s Montana’s business. Frankly, it is none of Washington, D.C.’s business either way! Ron Paul understands that.

Look at all the federal mandates that states and communities are implementing contrary to the values and belief systems of the citizens of the respective states and communities. That would not happen if Washington, D.C., would butt out of our affairs and let us govern ourselves. And if Massachusetts and California want to deprive their citizens of their God-given liberties, the people of those states can either remove those governments from power or move to a State where liberty is protected. But at least there would be some states standing in liberty to which one could go. As it is today, the entire country is under the heavy hand of usurpation and oppression due to the fact that, outside of Ron Paul and a few others in Washington, D.C., hardly anyone inside the Beltway believes in constitutional government.

Plus, look at the inconsistency of trying to elect civil magistrates by some sort of religious litmus test: Dr. Paul has been married to his wife, Carol, for over 50 years without the first scandal involving immoral activity, but because of a personal question regarding a religious issue, many Christians cannot vote for him? But Newt Gingrich can have so many extramarital affairs that he probably cannot even count them all, and yet his personal view of religion and morality are found acceptable to many Christians?

Is something wrong with this picture or what?

“I can’t vote for Ron Paul, because he is ‘anti-Israel,’” many Christians say.

Here are the facts: Dr. Paul has a Jeffersonian philosophy regarding foreign entanglements. He believes that we should trade freely with all nations, have diplomatic relations with all nations, and live at peace with all nations as much as is possible. He believes that Israel is a sovereign state and, therefore, has the right to determine its own affairs without Washington, D.C., dictating how, when, and what Tel Aviv can and cannot do for its own peace and security. He believes we need to butt out of everybody’s business and let sovereign states conduct their own internal affairs. He believes the US military should be used to protect the territory and people of the United States of America and should not be the world’s policeman or the puppet of the Security Council at the United Nations. But somehow, that is an unspiritual philosophy and many Christians can’t support him?

Newt Gingrich wants to continue the Wilsonian foreign entanglement philosophy by continuing to send troops to fight undeclared, unconstitutional wars; by continuing to entrap and enrage foreign capitols into conflicts that only serve the interests of international bankers and the military-industrial complex; by continuing to use Israel as a puppet to provoke conflict in the Middle East that only serves the purpose of advancing an international New World Order, and somehow this is seen as “spiritual” by many Christians who will support and vote for him?

Is something wrong with this picture or what?

If the Republican Party has a death wish, they will nominate Newt Gingrich as their Presidential candidate. Gingrich is a snake-oil salesman; his words are absolutely meaningless; he has the morals of an alley cat; and he will sell America’s sovereignty to an international New World Order and turn our country into a police state. Christians, of all people, should know better.

Newt Gingrich? Really?

The Barack Obama administration is quietly in the process of rigging use of the US Census of 2010, which deliberately counted millions of illegal aliens, for the purpose of restructuring the apportionment of the US House of Representatives. Accordingly, as candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor of one of the negatively affected states (Montana), Mr. Bob Fanning and I have joined with several others in becoming amici curiae in a pending federal lawsuit brought by the State of Louisiana against the US Secretary of Commerce, et al., which was filed January, 13, 2012 in the United States Supreme Court.

What has happened is, the US Census Bureau erroneously claims that it “‘is required by the U.S. Constitution count everyone living in this country, regardless of immigration or citizenship status.’” Accordingly, they have counted millions of illegal aliens in the 2010 Census and are using those figures to apportion the US House of Representatives. If this egregious misinterpretation of the US Constitution is allowed to stand, five states (Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, and Ohio) will lose representation in the US Congress to which they are lawfully entitled, while three states (California, Texas, and Florida) will be awarded additional representation in the US Congress to which they are not lawfully entitled. And, of course, this will also directly impact the makeup of the Electoral College, which ultimately elects the President of the United States.

Of course, this manipulation of the 2010 US Census also impacts the election of the US President, as those states that are granted more seats in the US Congress are also granted more votes in the Electoral College as the Electoral College is composed of a “Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress. . . .” (Article. II. Section. I. Clause. 2. US Constitution). And, as everyone knows, under the US Constitution, it is the Electoral College that ultimately elects the President of the United States. Thus, the states of Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, and Ohio, will be unjustly denied their lawful votes in the Electoral College, while California, Texas, and Florida, are being unjustly granted unlawful votes in the Electoral College. Would it not be extraordinary if the margin by which President Obama is re-elected in the Electoral College would be provided by the manipulation of the census data under his control? Again, this would be an outrage!

In essence, the Obama administration is rigging the US Census to steal a congressional seat from the State of Montana. This rigging will keep Montana from having a second congressional representative. If the illegals in California, Texas, and Florida are not included, then Montana will receive two congressional seats and four electoral votes. Under Obama’s rigging plan, Montana will continue to have only one congressional seat and three electoral votes.

Considering the major media and even most “conservative” talking heads have said virtually nothing about this monstrous misallocation of constitutional government is just the latest example of how truly out of touch the people who are entrusted to inform the American people really are.

The plaintiff in this case is the State of Louisiana, which has now been joined and supported by amici U.S. Border Control, U.S. Border Control Foundation, U.S. Justice Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, English First, English First Foundation, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, The Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Public Advocate of the United States, Policy Analysis Center, Virginia Del. Bob Marshall, Oklahoma Rep. Charles Key, Maryland Del. Don Dwyer, Washington Rep. Matt Shea, Wyoming Sen. Kit Jennings, as well as Candidate for Governor of Montana, Bob Fanning, and Candidate for Lieutenant Governor of Montana, Chuck Baldwin.

Attorneys filing this brief before the US Supreme Court are Herbert W. Titus, William J. Olson, John S. Miles, Jeremiah L. Morgan (of the law firm of William J. Olson, P.C. of Vienna, Virginia) and Gary G. Kreep (of the U.S. Justice Foundation).

As citizens of the State of Montana, and as candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor of the State of Montana, Bob Fanning and I are outraged at this unconstitutional manipulation of the 2010 US Census, and the subsequent unconstitutional and unlawful misapportionment of the US House of Representatives. We are further outraged that our own governor, Brian Schweitzer (the incumbent Democrat governor who is term-limited out of office after the completion of his current term) has done nothing to prevent the people of the State of Montana from being denied the rightful seating of an additional US House member from the Montana delegation to Washington, D.C. He has not served as Montana’s watchman, to make certain that our State is being treated fairly by the Obama administration. Louisiana has been forced to go it alone, as the only State willing to bring this challenge. By not joining the lawsuit against the Obama administration, what Governor Schweitzer in essence is doing is allowing illegal aliens to deny the due representation of the citizens of Montana in Washington, D.C. This is an outrage!

It is a gross misinterpretation of the US Constitution to claim that the US Census is supposed to “count everyone living in this country.” Article. I. Section. I. Clause 3. as amended by Section. 2. of the 14th Amendment authorizes “a targeted decennial census of the ‘respective numbers’ of ‘the People’ of the several States, not a wholesale count of the numbers of persons found ‘living’ in the United States.” The term “the People” is a technical term used in the U.S. Constitution to refer to the polity, that is, the people who constituted the government and who are legal citizens of the nation. Only by such a tailored count can the constitutionally-authorized decennial census serve the purpose for which that census has been required–the apportionment of representation of the people of the several states in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“It is manifestly untrue that the decennial census ordained by the Constitution is to be taken without regard to a person’s ‘immigration or citizenship status.’ The decennial census is conducted for the apportionment of representation in the House of Representatives, the members of which are ‘chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.’ (Article. I. Section. 2. Clause. 1. US Constitution). The first sentence of the 14th Amendment establishes a symbiotic relationship between a person’s United States citizenship and that person’s State citizenship. Thus, whether a person is part of ‘the People’ of a State is largely, if not exclusively, dictated by a person’s ‘immigration or citizenship status.’ Any census that ignores that connection is fatally flawed.”

In the afore-mentioned lawsuit, we are asking the US Supreme Court to preserve the integrity of the US House of Representatives and Electoral College.

I can tell you that the people who want to disassemble constitutional government in this country are hoping that no one notices what the Obama administration is doing to manipulate the 2010 US Census to unlawfully reconstruct the US House of Representatives and Electoral College. Well, I can tell you, Bob Fanning and I (along with the other amici curiae supporting Louisiana in this lawsuit) are not going to let that happen!

I will be holding a press conference to blow the whistle on what is taking place to deny the people of the State of Montana (along with the people of the states of Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio) their lawful representation in Washington, D.C. I am also using the influence and outreach of this column to alert the American people as to how the Obama administration is attempting to manipulate the US House of Representatives and Electoral College.

It is more than interesting also that the “anointed” establishment neocon Republican Montana gubernatorial candidate, Rick Hill, has, himself, not even bothered to alert the people of Montana to this travesty. Why not? Rick is a career politician who once served in the US House of Representatives from Montana. One would think he would want to protect the people of the State of Montana from this outrage. But he has said nothing! Plus, have you heard anything about this from any of the “conservative” talking heads on FOX News? No you haven’t! Why not? Why is it left to this column to alert you to this gross violation of constitutional government?

Therefore, I unashamedly appeal to readers to help Bob and I carry this fight to preserve the integrity of the US House of Representative and the Electoral College to the US Supreme Court. Please go to our web site at:

http://www.fanning-baldwin.com

I also highly encourage readers to visit the web site of the law firm filing this brief. William J. Olson, Herbert Titus, et al., have been at the front lines in helping to defend constitutional government for longer than many of us have been alive. Bill Olson and Herb Titus have defended a sizeable number of patriot organizations and individuals against federal usurpation for decades. I don’t know of another law firm with the credentials and track record of fighting for constitutional government, Second Amendment rights, and individual liberty anywhere in the country than the law firm of William J. Olson, P.C.

To learn more about this lawsuit and the Olson law firm, go to:

http://www.lawandfreedom.com/

In the meantime, each of us should be using our individual and collective sphere of influence to trumpet this attempted travesty as loudly as possible! I especially encourage readers in the states of Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, and Ohio to demand of every elected public office holder in their respective states to use every means possible to defend the lawful rights of their states to proper representation in the US House of Representatives and the Electoral College. The people of America simply must not allow this flagrant manipulation of the 2010 US Census to take place! If the Obama administration gets by with this now, think how the states’ representation in Congress will be abused in the future.

“God did not just give us rights,” pontificated His High
Holiness Rick Santorum during
a January 17 campaign stop in Lexington, South Carolina. “He gave us a
moral code by which to exercise them. See, that’s what Ron Paul sort of leaves
out. He leaves out [that the] rights and responsibilities that we have come
from God…. And he says, `No, we just have rights, and then that’s it.’ No, we
don’t. America is a moral enterprise.” And morality, Santorum believes, is best instilled through State coercion, including officially sanctioned murder.

Once again, Dr. Paul’s perspective on this question is
informed by the New Testament: “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a
man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man…. Do not ye
yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly,
and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceedeth out of the
mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart
proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, thefts, false witness,
blasphemies….” (Matthew 15:10-12,
16-19) 

Bear in mind, once again, that Santorum offered that
description of the candidate who – just hours earlier – had been publicly
ridiculed for insisting that God’s law, the Golden Rule, applies to everybody,
including those who preside over the criminal enterprise called the State.
Furthermore, among the current GOP presidential contenders, Dr. Paul is the
only candidate to extol the Constitution as a law that restrains the
government. Santorum, on the other hand, consistently seeks to restrain the
individual and emancipate the State. While he insinuates that Ron Paul is an
anarchist (he isn’t — none save One was perfect, after all — but he should be), Santorum has giddily celebrated
State lawlessness. 

Actually, the Obama
administration not only assassinated U.S.-born Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki —
who was never charged with a crime of any kind, let alone convicted and
sentenced by a court — but also al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old
son, Adbdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was killed by a drone strike in Yemen
while he was having dinner with a cousin (who also perished).


The Obama administration circulated
the story that the 16-year-old was actually an adult “suspected” of being a
“militant,” thereby redefining the killing as a strategic success. But the
family was able to document that the youngster — who had
gone to Yemen in a frantic search for his father, known to be on a U.S.
assassination list — was born in
Colorado in 1995.


Behavior of this kind is
generally associated with the likes of Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-Il.
Proponents of an aggressive foreign policy often characterize the regimes
ruling countries such as Iran, Syria, and North Korea as despotisms that
routinely “murder their own citizens,” and thus pose a threat to the
peace of the world. Yet Rick Santorum — who yields to nobody in his zeal to
wage war against distant and relatively powerless regimes — openly celebrates
the summary execution of U.S. citizens, and describes it as a model for similar
“wet work” operations against citizens of other countries. 


For Santorum, the defining
principle of politics is power, not liberty. His chief ideological inspiration
is not the imperfectly realized individualist James Madison, or even the
centralizing constitutionalist James Madison, but the arch-authoritarian Joseph
de Maistre, the 18^th Century apostle of absolutism. His role model
in policy terms could well be the murderous “Operative” from the film “Serenity.”


Maistre taught that “all
greatness, all power, all social order depends on the Executioner; he is the
terror of human society and tie that holds it together. Take away this
incontrovertible force from the world, and at that very moment order is
superseded by chaos, thrones fall, society disappears.” 


Santorum visibly shares the fear
that society will disintegrate if the State is deprived of the discretionary
power to kill people. In the film “Serenity,” the Operative acted as Maistre’s
Executioner on behalf of a galaxy-spanning bureaucratic empire called the
Alliance. He spent most of the film pursuing River Tam, a brilliant and irrepressibly
individualistic young girl with psychic abilities who had been abducted by the
regime and programmed to be an assassin.


River’s brother, a gifted
physician named Simon, sacrificed his future to free River, and the two of them
wound up aboard the Serenity, a merchant ship commanded by a noble but
embittered man named Malcolm Reynolds. Years earlier, Malcolm (or Mal) had
fought with the “Browncoats,” a group of separatists who waged a valiant but
losing battle for impendence from the Alliance. 


In his pursuit of River and Simon,
Alliance forces commanded by the Operative lays waste to an outpost called
Haven, where Mal and his crew had briefly found refuge. Similar Alliance
attacks have destroyed every other colony where Mal might have taken cover.
“I’m sorry,” the Operative
explains to Mal following the massacres. “If your quarry goes to ground, leave
no ground to go to…. [D]id you think none of this was your fault?”
“I don’t murder children,” Mal
replies with frigid disgust.


“I do,” the Operative
unblinkingly replies. “If I have to.” 


“Why?” Mal demands. “Do you even
know why they sent you?”


“It’s not my place to ask,” the
Operative wearily explains. “I believe in something greater than myself. A
better world. A world without sin.” 


Although he possesses none of
the Operative’s fearsome martial prowess, Rick Santorum likewise believe it is
possible to build a better world through State murder – not just Iraqi, Afghan,
Pakistani, and (soon) Iranian children, but American children like Abdulrahman
al-Awlaki. 


It’s little wonder that Santorum – like Newt Gingrich and the death
cult adherents who compose much of the GOP’s rank and file — finds Ron Paul’s
devotion to the Golden Rule to be morally unsatisfactory. 

Be sure to check out Republicmagazine — and sign up for your free digital subscription!

Article source: http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2012/01/santorum-state-murder-as-moral.html

Everyone knows that the US government is bankrupt and has been for many years. But I thought it might be instructive to see what its current cash-flow situation actually is. At least insofar as it’s possible to get a clear picture.

As you know, the so-called Super Committee recently tried to come up with a plan to cut the deficit by $1.5 trillion and failed completely. To anyone who understands the nature of the political process, the failure was, of course, as predictable as it was shameful. What’s even more shameful, though, is that the sought-after $1.5 trillion cut wasn’t meant to apply to the annual budget but to the total budget of the next 10 years – a fact that is rarely mentioned.

Now whenever the chattering classes talk about cuts, it’s always about cuts over the course of 10 years. Which is a dodge, partly because most of the supposed cuts will be scheduled for the end of the period, but also because new programs, new emergencies and hidden contingencies will creep in to offset any announced cuts. So the numbers below aren’t a worst case; they’re the rosiest possible scenario. People have thought I was joking when, asked how bad the Greater Depression was going to be, I answered that it would be worse than even I thought it would be. But I haven’t been joking.

To sum up the situation, given its financial condition and the political forces working to worsen it, the US government is facing a completely impossible and irremediable situation. I’m going to try to illustrate that here. But because I’m a perpetual optimist, not a gloom-and-doomer, I’m also going to give you solutions to the purely financial problems – albeit with some good news and some bad news. The good news is, there actually are solutions. The bad news is that there is zero chance that any of them will be put into effect.

The problems are one hundred percent caused by the US government, not by bankers, brokers or the real estate industry – although they have been complicit. Recall what government is: an organization with a monopoly of force within a certain geographical area. Its purpose is, ostensibly, to protect the inhabitants of its bailiwick from the initiation of force. That implies three functions: an army to protect against aggressors coming from outside of its borders; police to protect citizens from aggressors inside its borders; and a court system to allow citizens to adjudicate disputes without resorting to force. Assuming you’re going to have a government, it’s important to limit it strictly, lest it get completely out of control – it’s got a monopoly of force, after all – and overwhelm the society it’s supposed to protect.

Here I want you to distinguish government from society. They are not only two totally different things, but are potentially antithetical to each other. This is because the essence of government is force, not voluntary cooperation. Everything that people think the government provides (beyond some forms of protection) is really provided by society or with resources the government has taken from society. It’s critical to understand this, or you won’t see the slippery slope the US is now sliding on.

Is there any chance that the US government can reform and go back to a sustainable basis at this point? I’d say no. Its descent started in earnest with the Spanish-American War in 1898, when it acquired its first foreign possessions (Cuba, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, etc). It accelerated with the advent of the income tax and the Federal Reserve in 1913. It accelerated further with World War I, when the government took over the economy for 18 months. The New Deal and World War II made the state into a permanent major feature in the average American’s life. The Great Society made free food, housing and medical care a feature. The final elimination of any link of the dollar to gold in 1971 ensured ever-increasing levels of currency inflation. The Cold War and a series of undeclared wars (Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan and Iraq) cemented the military in place as a permanent focus of the government. And since 9/11, the curve has gone hyperbolic with the War on Terror. It’s been said that war is the health of the state. We have lots more war on the way, and that will expand the state’s spending. But the Greater Depression will be an even bigger drain, and it will likely destroy the middle class as an unwelcome bonus.

Read more at this link.

On the heels of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), otherwise known as the “Indefinite Detention Act,” comes another draconian bill designed to give the federal government the power to turn American citizens into enemies of the state for virtually any reason it deems necessary. Stephen D. Foster, Jr. has the story.

“Congress is considering HR 3166 and S. 1698 also known as the Enemy Expatriation Act, sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA). This bill would give the US government the power to strip Americans of their citizenship without being convicted of being ‘hostile’ against the United States. In other words, you can be stripped of your nationality for ‘engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.’ Legally, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war but considering the fact that the War on Terror is a little ambiguous and encompassing, any action could be labeled as supporting terrorism.”

Foster goes on to say, “I hope I’m wrong, but it sounds to me like this is a loophole for indefinitely detaining Americans. Once again, you just have to be accused of supporting hostilities which could be defined any way the government sees fit. Then the government can strip your citizenship and apply the indefinite detention section of the NDAA without the benefit of a trial.”

See Foster’s report at:

http://tinyurl.com/7thcxad

Ever since Congress passed the Patriot Act back in 2001, it seems the floodgates have been opened for more and more intrusions and abridgements of those fundamental liberties expressly protected in the Bill of Rights. From the Patriot Act, to the Military Commissions Act, to the NDAA (Indefinite Detention Act), and to now the Enemy Expatriation Act (EEA), these big government toadies in Washington, D.C., are clearly and unmistakingly declaring war on the American people.

I invite readers to see my column on the NDAA at:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=4382

Have we forgotten the MIAC report out of the State of Missouri back in 2009? In that official State report, supporters of Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin were identified as potential dangerous “militia members,” and Missouri State law enforcement officials were notified to be on guard. Beyond that, anyone that identified themselves as being pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, anti-Federal Reserve, Christians who believe in the return of Christ, and even returning Iraq War veterans were likewise targeted as potentially dangerous to Missouri State law enforcement personnel.

After the MIAC report surfaced, Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and I sent a letter to the governor of Missouri demanding that the report be removed and that the State of Missouri repudiate the report. After a firestorm of outrage by thousands of Americans all over the country (not just in Missouri) the State of Missouri did indeed remove and repudiate the report.

Totalitarian regimes throughout history have attempted to marginalize those people that the state intended to target for persecution. Once a group or groups of people had been sufficiently marginalized, it wasn’t long before public condemnation and then military retaliation took place. Legislation such as the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the NDAA, and now the EEA authorize military power to be used against US citizens, and given the propensity of government propagandists in the National Press Corps to marginalize groups of people whose ideas are thought to be politically incorrect, it’s only a matter of time before the executive branch of the federal government begins utilizing the dictatorial powers that have been granted to it by Congress. And, unfortunately, many State governments seem more than willing to participate in the Machiavellian machinations put forward by Washington, D.C. The MIAC report in the State of Missouri is a prime example.

Sadder still is the way so many Christian pastors and churches have become little more than glorified cheerleaders for Statism and Militarism. While the Trojan Horse of Big Government sits unnoticed in Town Square, so-called Christians spend most of their time either trying to kill each other because of differences of opinion over secondary doctrines, or trying to turn their worship services into miniature versions of Walt Disney World.

I ask you, did you hear anything from your pastor regarding NDAA? Did you hear anything from your pastor regarding the Patriot Act or the Military Commissions Act? If not, do you really think you will hear him say anything about the EEA? Again I ask you, are not the fundamental principles of liberty as valuable and as scriptural as the so-called “family values” we hear pastors talk so much about? I would argue that without the undergirding foundational principles of liberty (codified in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights), the so-called “family values” would become moot very quickly! Before Hitler’s government could begin marching people off to concentration camps, it had to destroy the foundational elements of liberty in the hearts and minds of the German people–including German pastors and churches. A government that doesn’t respect your liberty will not respect your life, your family, your religion, or your morality!

At this point, I invite readers to watch my address from last Sunday, January 8, 2012. In this address, I deal forthrightly with the NDAA and show the scriptural instruction regarding how unlawful and illegitimate government is the chief source of “tribulation” that the Bible talks so much about. I also give a scriptural outline as to how Christian people are to relate and respond to government–both good and bad. Watch my Sunday address at:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=4400

While we are on the topic of liberty, someone has produced a fascinating clip of Congressman Ron Paul showing the predictions he made on the floor of the US House of Representatives back in 2002–along with the fulfillment of those predictions in subsequent news headlines. People who view this brief You Tube video might just begin to understand why Congressman Paul is the only Presidential candidate who truly understands the causes of this loss of liberty taking place in our land. See Dr. Paul’s speech on the House floor at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

Given the way congressmen and senators from both major parties are willing to grant dictatorial powers to the President, it seems likely that the EEA will pass in much the same way as did the NDAA. It seems to me that the longer we keep expecting Washington, D.C., to solve our problems, the more our problems will increase. Remember the sagacious words of President Ronald Reagan: “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Listen to that quote at:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=145

If we are going to “guard and defend” (Daniel Webster) our liberties, it is going to take states and local communities to do it, because those miscreants in Washington, D.C., are doing everything they can to dismantle our liberties, not protect them. We need State governors, lieutenant governors, attorney generals, and sheriffs to stand in the gap NOW! And in that vein, I invite readers to follow the Fanning-Baldwin Montana gubernatorial campaign at the following Facebook and Twitter pages:

http://www.facebook.com:80/pages/Fanning-Baldwin-2012/120415194744039?sk=wall

https://twitter.com/#!/FanningBaldwin

In the meantime, beware! The Enemy Expatriation Act is coming soon, and with the way things are going, YOU could be deemed the enemy!

First, Congress considered the National Defense Authorization Act, sections of which gave the President the authority to use the military to arrest and indefinitely detain Americans without trial or charge. The language was revised because of strong condemnation from the American people. But now a new bill has emerged that poses yet another threat to the American citizenry.

Congress is considering HR 3166 and S. 1698 also known as the Enemy Expatriation Act, sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA). This bill would give the US government the power to strip Americans of their citizenship without being convicted of being “hostile” against the United States. In other words, you can be stripped of your nationality for “engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.” Legally, the term “hostilities” means any conflict subject to the laws of war but considering the fact that the War on Terror is a little ambiguous and encompassing, any action could be labeled as supporting terrorism. Since the Occupy movement began, conservatives have been trying to paint the protesters as terrorists.

The new law would change a part of US Code 1481 which can be read in full here. Compare 3166 to 1481 and the change is small. The new section makes no reference to being convicted as it does in section (7). So even though the language of the NDAA has been revised to exclude American citizens, the US government merely has to strip Americans of their citizenship and the NDAA will apply. And they will be able to do so without convicting the accused in a court of law.

I hope I’m wrong, but it sounds to me like this is a loophole for indefinitely detaining Americans. Once again, you just have to be accused of supporting hostilities which could be defined any way the government sees fit. Then the government can strip your citizenship and apply the indefinite detention section of the NDAA without the benefit of a trial. This certainly must be questioned by American citizens. The way these defense obsessed Republicans think, our rights are always in danger of being taken away.

To read the full text of the bill, go here.

I noted last month that SOPA would destroy jobs and the economy.

As Digital Trends points out:

The list of SOPA opponents also includes 425 venture capitalists and entrepreneurs — i.e. job creators. The editorial boards of The New York Times and Los Angeles Times are on the list, as are 39 public advocacy groups, nonprofits and think tanks who believe that SOPA will stifle freedom of speech. These are joined by 61 international human rights groups, and 116 academics and law experts from the nation’s top law schools. In short: The list of SOPA critics could not be any more legitimate.

And see this.

Internet Architects and Security Experts Warn Against SOPA

Digital Trends also reports that the creators of the Internet and security experts oppose SOPA:

83 Internet pioneers — we’re talking people like Vint Cerf, co-designer of TCP/IP; Jim Gettys, editor of the HTTP/1.1 protocol standards; Leonard Kleinrock, a key developer of the ARPANET; in other words, the very people who built the Internet — who say that SOPA (and the Protect IP Act, PIPA), “will risk fragmenting the Internet’s global domain name system (DNS) and have other capricious technical consequences” because of the bills’ requirement that Internet service providers block domain names of infringing sites.

In their letter to Congress, this group of Internet founders also argues that SOPA “will create an environment of tremendous fear and uncertainty for technological innovation, and seriously harm the credibility of the United States in its role as a steward of key Internet infrastructure.”

***

Former Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Stewart Baker … agrees with the Internet founders when he says that SOPA will “do great damage to Internet security, mainly by putting obstacles in the way of DNSSEC, a protocol designed to limit certain kinds of Internet crime,” among other repercussions.

Indeed, the Internet and security experts opposing this horrible legislation include luminaries such as:

1. Sandia National Laboratories
2. Ramaswamy Aditya, built various networks and web/mail content and application hosting providers
3. Mike Alexander, helped implement one of the first EMail systems to be connected to the Internet
4. Guy Almes, led the connection of universities in Texas to the NSFnet
5. Alia Atlas, designed software in a core router (Avici)
6. Fred Baker, former IETF chair
7. John Bartas, was technical lead on first commercial IP/TCP software for IBM PCs
8. Steven Bellovin, invented DNS cache contamination attack
9. Robert Bonomi, designed, built, and implemented, the Internet presence for a number of large corporations
10. Seth Breidbart, helped build the Pluribus IMP/TIP for the ARPANET
11. Jon Callas, worked on Internet security standards including OpenPGP, ZRTP, DKIM, Signed Syslog, SPKI
12. L. Jean Camp, former Senior Member of the Technical Staff at Sandia National Laboratories
13. Stephen L. Casner, led the working group that designed Real-time Transport Protocol
14. Bradford Chatterjee, Network Engineer, helped design backbone network for a nationwide ISP
15. Noel Chiappa, has been working on the lowest level stuff (the IP protocol level) since 1977
16. Dr. Richard Clayton, designer of Turnpike; Computer Security researcher at Cambridge University
17. Walt Daniels, IBM’s contributor to MIME
18. Steve Deering, Ph.D., invented the IP multicast feature of the Internet
19. Esther Dyson, founding chairman, ICANN
20. David Farber, Principal in development of CSNET, NSFNET, NREN, GIGABIT TESTBED
21. Stephen Farrell, co-author on about 15 RFCs
22. Elizabeth Feinler, developed naming conventions for Internet top level domains
23. Jim Gettys, editor of the HTTP/1.1 protocol standards
24. John Gilmore, co-designed BOOTP (RFC 951), which became DHCP
25. Steve Goldstein, Program Officer for International Networking Coordination at NSF 1989-2003
26. Jack Haverty, Principal Investigator for DARPA projects including first Internet development and operation
27. Simon Higgs, designed the role of the stealth DNS server that protects a.root-servers.net
28. Robert M. Hinden, worked on the gateways in the early Internet
29. Christian Huitema, worked on building the Internet in France and Europe in the 80’s
30. John Kemp, Principal Software Architect, Nokia
31. John Klensin, Ph.D., early role in design of Internet applications and coordination and administrative policies
32. Justin Krejci, helped build and run the two biggest and most successful municipal wifi networks
33. Dave Kristol, co-author, RFCs 2109, 2965 (Web cookies)
34. Phil Lapsley, co-author of the Internet Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP)
35. Anthony Lauck, helped design and standardize routing protocols and local area network protocols
36. Tony Li, co-author of BGP (the protocol used to arrange Internet routing)
37. Christopher Liljenstolpe, was the chief architect for AS3561 and AS1221
38. Jon Loeliger, has implemented OSPF, one of the main routing protocols used to determine IP packet delivery
39. Alexander McKenzie, participated in design of first ARPAnet Host protocols
40. David Mercer, formerly of The River Internet, provided service to more of Arizona than any local, national ISP
41. Samuel Moats, senior systems engineer for the Department of Defense
42. Keith Moore, was on the Internet Engineering Steering Group from 1996-2000
43. Lyndon Nerenberg, Creator of IMAP Binary extension (RFC 3516)
44. David Newman, 20 years’ experience in performance testing of Internet infrastructure
45. Carl Page, helped found eGroups
46. Craig Partridge, architect of how email is routed through the Internet
47. John Pettitt, Internet commerce pioneer
48. Louis Pouzin, designed and implemented first computer network using datagrams
49. Ryan Rawdon, was on the technical operations team for one of our country’s largest residential ISPs
50. Glenn Ricart, Managed the original (FIX) Internet interconnection point
51. Peter Rubenstein, helped to design and build the AOL backbone network, ATDN
52. Larry Stewart, built the Etherphone at Xerox
53. Robert W. Taylor, founded Xerox PARC Computer Science Lab which designed first Internet protocol
54. Paul Timmins, designed and runs the multi-state network of a medium sized telephone and internet company
55. John Vittal, created the first full email client and the email standards still in use today

The inventor of the World Wide Web - Tim Berners-Lee – also opposes all Internet censorship.  See thisand this.