On this weekend’s edition of The Kevin Trudeau Show, Judge Andrew Napolitano stops by to expose why your freedoms are being forfeited by a government that is more protective of its own power than its constitutional promise to preserve your individual liberties. Click here to purchase his new book, Lies The Government Told You.
PLUS, The Water Doctor, Fred Van Liew, discusses John Stossel’s bunko assertions that plastic bottles don’t cause health problems and that tap water is healthy. Click here to save yourself from the toxins lurking in your water supply!
FDA Suppressed Imaging Safety Concerns
Cuban Leader Endorses Obama Health Care Reform
Expert Claims of Livestock Causing Global Warming False
Record Number of Journalists Murdered Last Year
Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!
April 17, 2012
By Paul Joseph Watson
“Is the IRS even allowed to do this?” –KTRN
Efforts to pass a bill that would allow the IRS to deny travel rights to U.S. citizens who the feds merely claim owe $50,000 or more in delinquent taxes represents a de facto move to revoke the citizenship of Americans without due process and in complete violation of the Constitution.
Thanks to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a recently passed Senate bill, the suitably Orwellian entitled ‘Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act’, includes a provision that allows the federal government to revoke passports of Americans accused of owing back taxes.
The legislation now moves to the Congress where, despite a Republican majority, the IRS provision is expected to be retained in the final version of the bill because it will raise an estimated $750 million dollars over ten years.
“There is no requirement that the tax payer be guilty of or even charged with tax evasion, fraud, or any criminal offense — only that the citizen is alleged to owe the IRS back taxes of $50,000 or more,” reports the Daily Economist.
Empowering the IRS to deny fundamental rights on a whim is completely illegal and unconstitutional.
“There are also numerous Supreme Court precedents protecting these same rights,” writes Jack Swint. “Furthermore, the law appears to violate Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution, which forbids “Bills of Attainder”, which are laws providing for the punishment of an individual without benefit of judicial process.”
“It takes away your right to enter or exit the country based upon a non-judicial IRS determination that you owe taxes,” Constitutional Attorney Angel Reyes told FOX Business. “It’s a scary thought that our congressional representatives want to give the IRS the power to detain US citizens over taxes, which could very well be in dispute.”
What’s next? If the feds can bar you from leaving the country merely by claiming you have committed some infraction without having to provide any evidence, the prospect of Americans being abducted and interned indefinitely under the National Defense Authorization Act with a similar absence of due process is just around the corner.
April 16, 2012
Personal Liberty Digest
By Chip Wood
“Don’t be excited over your tax rebate. You should have been able to keep all of that money to begin with.” –KTRN
Arghhh! It just happened again. No, I’m not referring to the billions of dollars hard-working taxpayers will have to send to Uncle Sam by April 17. (We get an extra two days to file a return this year, thanks to the 15th falling on a Sunday and the 16th being a holiday in Washington.)
What gets my goat is when someone — especially a near and dear family member — celebrates receiving a tax refund. People act as though it’s manna from heaven. They rejoice in their totally unexpected bounty from a beneficent government.
I try to explain that the Internal Revenue Service really isn’t doing them a favor and that, in fact, the opposite is true. I tell them that by overpaying their taxes during the past year, they have in effect been giving a profligate and wasteful government an interest-free loan. When I say that, they look at me as through I’ve suddenly sprouted two heads.
They are utterly perplexed by my suggestions: They should not celebrate their tax refund, and they should do everything they can to keep as much of their money for as long as they can while working to put Big Government on a starvation diet.
April 12, 2012
By Kurt Nimmo
Film director, producer, actor and writer Sean Stone has thrown his weight behind a resolution introduced in the House last month by North Carolina Republican Walter Jones. Resolution 107 states that should the president use offensive military force without the authorization of Congress that such an act would be “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.”
Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves exclusively for Congress the power to declare war. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison argued that the power to declare war must reside in the legislative branch of government and the president will only act as the commander-in-chief and direct the war after it is declared by Congress.
“The constitution supposes, what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the legislature,” Madison wrote.
In the video, Stone notes Obama’s unconstitutional war on Libya was waged “despite the fact that the United States was neither attacked, nor threatened for attack by the nation of Libya.”
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said during questioning by Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama that the Obama administration does not believe Congress has the exclusive right to declare war and that the Pentagon answers to the United Nations, not the people of the United States.
The Obama administration “does not believe that the Congress has the exclusive power to declare war,” Stone notes, and “accordingly the president should be impeached.”
April 6, 2012
By Michael Lind
“The Supreme Court is completely out of control – just like virtually every other government organization.” –KTRN
On Monday, we had another example of the Supreme Court’s ideological division: a 5-4 ruling, along partisan lines, giving police the right to conduct strip searches for any offense. This came on the heels of last week’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court about the constitutionality of the individual mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act, which led many observers to predict that the nation’s highest judicial body will strike down part or all of the controversial healthcare reform package. But the hearings were instructive in other ways. They showed once again that political partisanship is closely correlated to a justice’s view of the law. And they proved that the Supreme Court once again is functioning, not as a court, but as a third house of the federal legislature.
The U.S. Constitution, like many state constitutions, really is two constitutions in one. There is the black-letter constitution, which consists of rules about which there is little or no dispute. Most of these have to do with qualifications for representatives, like Article I, Section 3, Clause 1, as amended: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.” Not a whole lot of room for interpretation there.
The other constitution, embedded in the same document, is the Blank Constitution. It is not so much a limit on power as an assignment of the power to fill in blanks left in the text, like the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment.” The need to fill in the blank is admitted even by champions of the “original intent theory,” who must dig up historical evidence of what the drafters and ratifiers might have thought was cruel and unusual punishment at the time of the Constitution’s adoption. The answer is not contained in the text.
April 4, 2012
By Joe Wright
“It looks like the Supreme Court is out of control too. Maybe they should go bowling with the FDA.” –KTRN
The Supreme Court continues to erode every protection Americans have come to expect as their guarantee under the law of the land, known as the U.S. Constitution.
In addition to ruling 5-4 this week to allow prison strip searches for minor offenses, they now have ruled that government witnesses — informants — can lie to the grand jury and, in so doing, will be immune from civil lawsuits by the wrongfully accused.
Justice Alito concurred with the strip search opinion above, and he is at the forefront of this current ruling, which I believe sets a horrible precedent that lying even to a Grand Jury carries no penalty whatsoever.
The ruling makes an argument that Grand Jury cases often involve violent criminal elements, which seek to go after witnesses, and that civil lawsuits would only seek to publish their identity, putting witnesses in harm’s way. Furthermore, Alito argued that suits could deliberately be filed specifically to uncover a particular identity.
While this particular reasoning seems logical at first glance, the case upon which this ruling was established was not one where the above scenario would apply. In other words, the precedent-setting case is one that establishes the broadest possible framework. The case is Rehberg vs. Paul in which:
April 4, 2012
By Patrick Henningsen
“Obama taught constitutional law? Really?” –KTRN
Many a constitutional scholar were left with their jaws hanging near their ankles following Obama’s press conference on the White House lawn yesterday, where he railed against Supreme Court, describing their potential to overturn his Obamacare as that of an “Unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constitutional and passed law.”
According to the President, it would be “unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to overturn his health care law. His preemptive strike against the Supreme Court should worry more people than opponents of Obamacare.
What is most amazing is that this statement comes from someone who purports to have taught Constitutional Law at University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. One might come to conclusion that Obama had someone else take his law exams, not least because the Supreme Court’s ability to overturn such legislation hasn’t been “unprecedented” since Marbury v. Madison in 1803.
Even more disturbing than his individual display of legislative incompetency, or the chief executive’s own summary ignorance of history, is an inability to grasp the over arching concept of separation of powers, also known as “checks and balances”, which is the keystone of an American constitutional republic. The Constitution does not explicitly say whether any branch of government should rule over another, but James Madison, in the Federalist Papers, did hint that “it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.”
April 3, 2012
“Orwellian’s 1984 is slowly becoming reality.” –KTRN
Unpaid parking tickets? That’s a strip search. And no leash on your doggie? That’s a strip search too. It might sound weird, and a wee bit terrifying, but that’s the verdict out of the United States Supreme Court this week.
The US Supreme Court decided in a 5-4 vote made Monday that law enforcement officials have the right to conduct invasive strip searches on any arrested persons, no matter how minor the alleged offense might be. The decision comes after the highest court in America examined an earlier case in which a man was wrongly arrested due to a processing error over an unpaid fine and then brought to two separate holding facilities where he was subjected to searches he says were“humiliating.”
Albert Florence was arrested in New Jersey back in 2005 after his pregnant wife was pulled over for driving their car above the posted speed limit. Responding officers identified Mr. Florence on the scene in the passenger seat and discovered a warrant for his arrest stemming from unpaid fines. An investigation would later reveal that the fines in question had indeed been paid in full, but before law enforcement could come to that conclusion, Mr. Florence spent a week behind bars. While detained, Florence was forced to strip naked, squat and manipulate his genitals twice for inspecting officers examining him for contraband, gang-related markings and communicable diseases.
Florence would go on to argue that the way he was handled over a minor (and incorrect) offense violated his rights under both the Fourth and Fourteen Amendments of the US Constitution, an argument a Federal District Court agreed with during an initial hearing. A Third Circuit Court would later rule, however, that strip-searching nonindictable offenders without reasonable suspicion was not a constitutional violation, which in turn brought the case to the Supreme Court. On Monday, five justices sided with the appeal and agreed that any detained alleged criminal, regardless of the crime, could be strip searched if deemed necessary by law enforcement.
April 2, 2012
“Shouldn’t there be free speech everywhere? Watch the video below. The man interviewing the cop should be given a medal.” –KTRN
The “free speech zone,” despite being anathema to the U.S. Constitution, has been used intermittently since the Vietnam War protests. Their use has expanded ever since to actually hide protesters, as they did during the Democratic and Republican National Conventions in 2004. Under the guise of “public safety” and well-contrived property rights, municipalities are attempting to circumvent the fact that all of America is a free speech zone for those who wish to engage in the political discourse determining their future.
These zones have now become nothing more than a political tool used to alter the perception of media coverage, as supporters are routinely allowed a front-row seat in full view of cameras, while protesters are housed in cages sometimes blocks away from the actual event. Activists have even faced felony charges for their refusal to permit their rights to be violated.
Free speech zones continue their incremental march across America in a variety of locations, as evidenced in the following video from Mesa, AZ where those who wish to express their political views outside the GOP debate are corralled and harassed. However, reporter Shelton Obadiah (4409) doesn’t make it easy for the bureaucrats and petty tyrants he faces:
April 2, 2012
“Even the Supreme Court thinks Congress is lame.” –KTRN
The Supreme Court left little doubt during last week’s marathon arguments over President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul that it has scant faith in Congress’ ability to get anything done.
The views about Congress underlay questions from justices who appear to be on both sides of the argument over the constitutionality of the law’s key provision, the individual insurance requirement, as well as whether the entire law should be thrown out if the mandate is struck down.
The comments were particularly striking from the conservative justices who have called on unelected judges to show deference to the actions of elected officials.
Justice Antonin Scalia, who appeared strongly in favor of striking down the entire law, was the most outspoken in his disdain for the branch of government that several justices can see from their office windows.
“You can’t repeal the rest of the act because you’re not going to get 60 votes in the Senate to repeal the rest. It’s not a matter of enacting a new act. You’ve got to get 60 votes to repeal it. So the rest of the act is going to be the law,” Scalia said, explaining it might be better to throw the whole thing out.
Justice Anthony Kennedy draw laughs when he asked a lawyer describing what Congress would want the court to do, “Is that the real Congress or a hypothetical Congress?”
Several justices joined in the courtroom’s laughing reaction when the lawyer leading the challenge to the law appeared to suggest Congress could pass new legislation “in a couple of days,” if the court wiped away the entire law.
The justices thus seemed to be thinking along the same lines as the public, according to polls that show Congress’ standing at historic lows.
That outlook, more prevalent among the conservatives than the liberals on the court, is one reason that the Obama administration’s lawyers ran into such stiff resistance in questions from the bench.
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. repeatedly invoked Congress’ power under the Constitution to take aggressive action to deal with health care, which makes up 17 percent of the U.S. economy, and with the problem of 50 million people who lack insurance but whose health costs are being passed on to taxpayers and those with insurance.
The court, Verrilli said at the end of Tuesday’s argument session, “has a solemn obligation to respect the judgments of the democratically accountable branches of government.”