Independence in jeopardy<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
By Henry Lamb
Every July 4th, we retreat to fireworks, feast, and festival, in celebration of an independence that is rapidly becoming little more than a memory.   Our ancestors declared their independence in 1776 from a tyrannical, overbearing government.  The independence claimed by the authors of the U.S. Constitution helped them create a government expressly prohibited from becoming tyrannical and overbearing, by limiting its power to certain enumerated responsibilities.   Those limitations have long been ignored, and the current government makes no apology for its overbearing tyranny.
Just as American independence was foreshadowed by a tea party in Boston, America's new independence is foreshadowed by tea parties across the nation.  There is more evidence that a new declaration is being drafted.  Currently, state-sovereignty-resolutions in 36 states have been approved or are being considered. Several states are following Montana's example, enacting laws that defy federal intervention. More than a dozen states have enacted, or are considering legislation that prohibits the federal government from imposing a mandatory National Animal Identification System.  These are symptoms of a society that is dissatisfied with the long train of abuses that government continues to inflict upon it.
As the modern-day freedom-fighters begin to organize and strategize, the government chooses not to reform, but to entrench and expand its control over the people. 
The similarity is remarkable, between the rise of the Democratic Socialist Party now in control of Washington, and the rise of the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany in the 1930s.
Led by an articulate orator, the German government set out to nationalize healthcare, transportation, manufacturing, and law enforcement.  The Obama government has set out to nationalize manufacturing of autos, and the finance industry.  The Obama-backed "cap and trade" legislation will effectively nationalize the energy and transportation industries.  And Obama's nationalized healthcare program is on the front burner.
Now here's another similarity: nationalization of law enforcement sponsored by Democrat Rep. Bob Filner, was introduced to:
"Provide police officers, criminal investigators, and game law enforcement officers of the Department of Defense with the authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms." (Emphasis added.)
Why do employees of the Department of Defense need the authority to execute warrants, make arrests and carry firearms?  When the bill was introduced, Filner said: "We need to ensure that federal, state, and local law enforcement are able to work together to apprehend criminals and to prevent and solve crimes."
The 1878 Posse Comitatus Act explicitly prohibits the Department of Defense from involvement in state and local law enforcement activities.   The feds have the FBI to investigate federal crimes and the Justice Department to prosecute federal crimes.  Waco and Ruby Ridge are good examples of federal law enforcement.   And the land management agencies have gun-totin' enforcement officers to prevent tourists from picking up arrowheads on federal property.  Why do we need to authorize the Secretary of Defense to arm another domestic police force?
Take a clue from the authorities granted by the bill:
·        To execute and serve warrants;
·        To make arrests without warrants;
·        To carry firearms;
·        To enforce federal laws enacted to protect persons or property;
·        To prevent breaches of the peace and suppress affrays or unlawful assemblies….
There are other authorities, but let's focus on this last one: "To prevent breaches of the peace and suppress affrays or unlawful assemblies."  What is an unlawful assembly?  Any assembly that is not authorized by government is unlawful.  Should an irate society decide to hold a tea party even if government refused to authorize it, then there must be a reliable federal law enforcement army to "suppress" the unlawful assembly.  Local police cannot be trusted to "suppress" an assembly of their neighbors.
In Germany, this police force was called the Gestapo.  In Germany, the people who resisted the nationalization of anything were immediately branded as "right wing extremist" and denounced and ridiculed by government officials and by the press.  Watch the government and press response to the April tea parties.
 These people who assemble peacefully to protest government policies are described as "Astroturf" pawns of corporate interests, by Speaker Pelosi, and as "ignorant rednecks" by Janeane Garofalo.   Assemblies such as these were outlawed in 1930s Germany.  They can be outlawed, and are being outlawed or otherwise prevented, in this country today.
The July 4th Atlanta tea party scheduled since March was abruptly cancelled on June 18 when a major donor to the Democrat Socialist Party now in control of Washington, exerted sufficient influence to have permission to use the property withdrawn.
Americans can't comprehend the possibility that the federal government could ever become as oppressive as Germany in the 1930s.  Think again.  How many bills are now floating around that seek to either register guns, or outlaw them completely?  This was one of the first objectives of the 1930s German Government.  Once the guns were registered, the Gestapo knew exactly where to go to confiscate them.
Is this why the Democrats in Washington now want to create a federal domestic police force?
Independence and individual freedom are not virtues to Democratic Socialists; but government control is.
 ___
[email protected] Henry Lamb is the author of The Rise of Global Governance and chairman of www.sovereignty.net Sovereignty International and founder of the www.freedom.org  Environmental Conservation Organization