March:

Where: North East Lawn, Washington Monument, Washington, D.C.
When: July 12th, 2008, 9:30AM
Route: Constitution Avenue.

9:30 AM Assemble on the North Lawn of the Washington Monument
10:30 AM Begin march down Constitution Avenue. Rally begins at 11:00 AM.

Rally:

Rallying Point: West Side of Capitol Hill, begins at 11:00 AM.

Theme: The main theme of the March and Rally is Ron Paul’s message of Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom through adherence to the Constitution.

Confirmed Speakers:

• Tom Mullen - Private citizen, patriotic American, and our grassroots representative, with an important message for our servant government.
• G. Edward Griffin – founder of Freedom Force International and author of The Creature from Jekyll Island, shares his in depth research and analysis concerning the Federal Reserve System and the forces behind its inception.
• Charles Goyette – syndicated talk radio host based in Phoenix, Arizona to discuss a return to the country’s constitutional traditions of sound money and limited government, the foundation upon which a viable economy can be rebuilt.
• Bob Schulz - founder of We The People Congress and We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, to speak on the People’s ability to hold the government accountable to the Constitution and restore the Republic by exercising their natural Right of Redress.
• Marcy Brooks – Juror in the tax trial of Whitey Harell v. State of Illinois (featured in Aaron Russo’s America: From Freedom to Fascism will talk about the responsibility of being a juror in tax evasion cases.
• Thomas E Woods Jr - author of “Who Killed the Constitution?: The Fate of American Liberty from World War I to George W. Bush” to discuss how the federal government has circumvented the Constitution and is systematically dismantling the rights and freedoms that are the foundation of a Constitutional Republic.
• Naomi Wolf – advocate of progressive politics and author of “The End of America: A letter of warning to a young patriot”. Ms. Wolfe will take a historical look at the rise of fascism, outlining the 10 steps necessary for a state to take control of individuals’ lives.
• Jack McLamb – Military Veteran, retired police officer, and radio talk show host to discuss the potential for martial law to come to America.
• Howard Phillips - Chairman of The Conservative Caucus since 1974, will discuss the multifaceted plan to turn the U.S., Canada and Mexico into a North American version of the European Union.
• Terri Hall – Founder and Director of Texasturf.org to discuss among other things, the ranches that are being unconstitutionally confiscated to build the Trans-Texas Corridor (NAFTA Superhighway).
• Jim Guest - MO representative to discuss the potential loss of U.S. Sovereignty; U.S. jobs that will permanently be lost; and environmental issues among other things, with the Kansas City Smart Port.
• Jeff Lewis - National Director of Fire Coalition to discuss the economic impact illegal immigration has had on the country as well as the tie between the lack of enforcement of our immigration laws and the NAU, as well as discussing why we are fighting a war on terrorism when our borders are still not secured.
• Michael Scheuer – 22 year veteran of the CIA and bestselling author of ‘Imperial Hubris’ to discuss American foreign policy and its implications on terrorism, security, and Iraq
• Adam Kokesh - Representative from the Iraq Veterans Against the War to address IVAW’s strategy to end the war, the greatest injustice of our time, and how that strategic thinking can be extrapolated to the broader movement in terms of active resistance.
• Chuck Baldwin – Constitution Party Presidential Candidate, Pastor, and radio talk show host to speak about hope for America and a new breed of politician.
• Ron Paul - to speak about the future of the Revolution.

The entire rally is supposed to be broadcasted live on RonPaulRadio.com.

You can catch their live stream here. http://ronpaulradio.com/listen.m3u

According to RevolutionMarch.com over 15 thousand people have pledged to be there. If half of that shows up it’ll be a success in my book.

At least there appears to be some people sticking up for some level of sovereignty.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/…

Europe’s political elitists are not very happy with the unwashed masses. First, French and Dutch voters had the unmitigated gall a couple of years ago to reject the European Union’s proposed constitution. In an effort to sidestep the democratic process, the political elite then made a few cosmetic changes to the document and called it a treaty, hoping this would enable national governments to bypass their voters. Much to their chagrin, however, Irish politicians could not figure out how to sidestep their nation’s referendum requirement, and the people of the Emerald Isle proceeded to reject the statist EU constitution (now officially referred to as the Lisbon Treaty). This led to a frenzy of anti-democratic utterances from the political class, but the prize for the most Orwellian response goes (what a surprise) to a French politician, who just stated that allowing voters to decide is “a tool for dictators.” He also wins a secondary prize for his assertion that the EU constitution, which would have granted even more power to undemocratic bureaucratic institutions in Brussels, is needed “to grant our citizens more power.” The Irish Times reports:

Alain Lamassoure MEP tells Jamie Smyth , European Correspondent, Ireland was wrong to hold a referendum, which is ‘a tool for dictators’. …”We are paralysed by the unanimity rule and we pass legislation through undemocratic procedures . . . we have a duty to grant our citizens more power,” he said.

Get ready for the same type of response from the US, Mexican and Canadian subjects when the North American Union get publicly underway. War is peace; oligarchy is democratic republic; slavery is freedom.

http://www.catholicexchange.com/…

In a decision that foreshadows the possible fate of Fr. Alphonse de Valk, Canada’s leading pro-life voice among Catholic clergy, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal has forbidden evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson from expressing his moral opposition to homosexuality. The tribunal also ordered Boisson to pay $5,000 “damages for pain and suffering” and apologize to the “human rights” activist who filed the complaint.

The complaint stems from Canada’s debate leading up to state legislation recognizing so-called same-sex marriage. In 2002, the pastor wrote a letter to the editor of his local newspaper in which he denounced the homosexual agenda as “wicked” and stated that: “Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.”

The activist subsequently filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission — a quasi-judicial body that investigates alleged discrimination within the Canadian province. The government tribunal published its decision [http://albertahumanrights.ab.ca/Lund_Darren_Remedy053008.pdf] on May 30.

While agreeing that Boisson’s letter was not a criminal act, the government tribunal nevertheless ordered the Christian pastor to “cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.” Moreover, the tribunal’s decision “prohibited [Boisson] from making disparaging remarks in the future” about the activist who filed the complaint and witnesses who supported the complaint. Many of Canada’s religious leaders and civil libertarians have expressed concern that the government’s human rights tribunals are interpreting any criticism of homosexual activism as ‘disparaging’.

The tribunal also ordered Boisson to provide the complainant with a written apology for his letter to the editor. This last requirement threatens civil liberties in Canada, said Ezra Levant, a Jewish-Canadian author and lawyer. Levant, himself the target of an Alberta Human Rights Commission investigation, is facing the possibility the state may order him to apologize as well.

What a bunch of horseshit. People like to point to Canada and many of the EU nations as a bastion of civil liberties. With any amount of research you can see that it’s only the liberties of the secular statists who are protected. This is outright censorship and should be condemned. If people want to combat what some could consider hate speech they should work to ostracize those who speak it. Don’t purchase the media publishing it. Don’t use the threat of violence to get people to not speak… use a superior position to make their ideas appear incorrect.

From the NYTimes:

In a significant setback for efforts to reform Europe’s unwieldy institutions, a senior Irish official said Friday that voters had rejected a revised European Union treaty designed to change the way the bloc governs itself and presents itself to the world.

The BBC reports that “Voters in Ireland have rejected the European Union’s Lisbon reform treaty in a referendum by 53.4% to 46.6%.” The Beeb also has a Q&A on the referendum at their site. The most interesting question:

Why is Ireland the only EU member to be holding a referendum?

Under Irish law, any amendment to EU treaties requires an amendment to the Irish constitution - and all constitutional amendments require approval by referendum. That has been the case since a Supreme Court ruling in 1987.

Governments in other EU member states have argued that the Lisbon Treaty is an amending treaty which, like other EU amending treaties, only requires parliamentary approval. So they are all going down the parliamentary ratification route.

Yet there are calls in several member states for referendums. In the UK, the opposition Conservatives and some Labour MPs have demanded a referendum. They say the Lisbon Treaty is very much like the EU constitution - and that the Labour Party promised to hold a referendum on the constitution.

Funny that they mention the EU constitution. Since that effort failed to make it past the vote of the people (see France and the Netherlands), it’s reworded as a treaty and adopted by parliamentary approval in most European states. If I were Irish, I’d probably vote NO on those grounds alone.