Libertarianism 101: Your Speech Rights

By Tom Rhodes, 1/4/2018

As long as speech doesn't specifically call for violence, is legally libel, etc. except in exceptional circumstances, as in a state of war, your speech is protected. Prior restraint is an attempt to prevent publication or broadcast of any statement. The Supreme Court consistently rules that prior restraint is unconstitutional. According to multiple Supreme Court rulings, the following are all considered protected speech:

Writing is protected speech.

Speaking is protected speech.

Spending Money is protected speech.

Speaking anonymously is protected speech.

Offensive and hateful words are protected speech.

Joining a group of other Americans to petition the government is also protected speech.

There are no rulings or laws or amendments that say speech must be fair, nice, or approved by society at large. Speech is protected not your feelings, not your ideas, as such:

You have no right to not be offended.

You have no right to be protected from ideas you don't like.

You have no right to have your speech funded by others.

You have no right to stop funding by others of speech you don't approve.

You have no right to silence speech you feel should be classified as "hate speech."

You have no right to initiate violence against others who say things you don't like.

You have no right to shut down or stop others from speaking.

You have no right to force others to stay and listen to your speech.

Your only right to not hear "hate speech," or any other "speech" you don't like, is to walk away, turn the channel, close the web page, etc.

The Great Divide

By Tom Rhodes, 3/1/2018

There is a Great Divide in America. It is the real divide in the USA, and it isn't Democrat vs Republican, nor Right vs Left. The real divide in the USA is elitist vs populist. About two centuries ago, the populists did something the elitists never dreamed could happen. They said We The People will Establish a Government and organize its powers in such form, that We the People deem most likely to effect our safety and happiness. This was a slap in the face of elitists all over the world. “How dare mere peasants assume they can govern themselves!”

The elitists are those in positions of authority, and those who want and depend on experts to provide and take care of them. The populists, here in the USA, are Normal Americans who want to be self-reliant, and self-ruling, who accept government as a necessary evil instituted to protect their liberty. There are many, who do not want, and fear, liberty and freedom; hey prefer the security of having an elite dictate what they should do and take care of them (aka. Slavery). They are elitists just as much as are those in authority who want to control the masses.

We the People specifically prohibited the government from infringing on our rights, which are natural, pre-political, and exist outside of the auspice of any government. Again the idea that peasants have rights that aren't controlled and granted by the elites is a slap in the face. Elites think by virtue of their position that they know better what rights the common man should be allowed to exercise. Elitists believe in a top-down approach where professional bureaucrats rule the country and dictate cultural norms and what is acceptable dialogue and what is not, while populists believe the people are self-governing and ultimately determine the course of our politics and culture.

Elitists for over 2 centuries have been working to fundamentally transform America, to the historic norm for all of mankind, which has total elite control over the population and where dissent from their views is vilified. The gun debate is simply another battle in the all-out war elites are waging on the American people’s right to even have an opinion, let alone speak out about it and not be punished for it. "How dare you bitterly cling to your religion and guns!"

Elitists want you silenced, controlled, and disarmed. They want you, the populist, the Normal American, to be disempowered; you! not the insane, not the criminals, not the terrorist, not the illegal aliens. You. Why? Because they hate you.

Elitists are appalled at the fact that in even in statist and compliant New York, where they mandated the registration of certain weapons and outlawed high capacity magazines, only a mere 10% of the people obeyed their law. Elitists hate that you won't submit. Elitists hate that you won't obey. Elitists hate that you think you should be able to share ideas and beliefs they don't approve. Elitists especially hate that you refuse to give up your only means of protecting yourself and preserving your rights. Elitists believe that they should control you, thus they should be the only ones with access to the tools of violence that can stop them, because they hate you.

Ask them, elitists openly say that you are deplorable, if you don't agree with their call to be disarmed you're a terrorist, if you express opinion they don't believe or they want silenced your insane, or too stupid, or whatever. They openly try to dehumanize those who don't accept their right to rule and not be questioned. They want you dehumanized so that you don't have rights, so that they can kill you. Look on social media, elitists openly and repeatedly call on violence and killing those who express and hold views they don't approve.

Understand that elites doesn't hate the NRA. They hate you. Elitists understand the power of the NRA is really the power of millions of populists (aka. Normal Americans), coming together to defend their right to protect themselves, their families, their communities and their Constitution. That’s why they fear it. That’s why they attack it. That’s why they can't abide its existence. Because of the Second Amendment, their power to limit the First is diminished. They want your voices silenced. They want the very idea of a self-governing people eliminated. Why else would they bar the use of Foundational Documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, be used in public schools.

Elitists have openly come out in favor of cowardice, they are attacking the right of self-defense. Their argument is you don't need guns to protect yourself. In fact in other countries where elites have more power, self-defense is outlawed. But Parkland demonstrates you certainly can't expect an elitist-run law enforcement agency like the Broward Sheriff’s Office to protect you, there duty is to go home safe and protect the elites from the people. They believe the life of government workers is more important than your child’s life. Those hired by the elites to enforce their will have no duty to protect you. Elitists hate that in the two most recent rulings on the right to self-defense, the Supreme Court characterized that right as "pre-political." That means it pre-existed the government. The damn populist Constitution and Bill of Rights, continues to thwart elitist power and control. If the elitists succeed in disarming you, where does that leave you? You can't protect yourself, and in return, no one from the government will protect you either.

On the subject of elitists vs populists, Frank Cannon, president at American Principles Project, recently wrote; “Fortunately, the American people are fully cognizant of what is taking place, which is why they voted for Donald Trump in 2016. Instead of looking at Trump and Clinton through the two lenses voters typically use, moral character and issue positions, voters applied a third lens: would their views be allowed to be articulated at all without dire consequences under a Clinton administration? “

The reality is the elitists, have had enough of uppity populists and are openly attacking individual liberty and the rights of the common man. We the People can no longer ignore the encroachment of the elites on our fundamental, pre-existing rights, and must act. Frank Cannon also noted that, “We cannot keep pretending, like so many Never Trumpers do, that we are operating in an environment of normal political give-and-take on issues. That time has passed. We are instead operating in a country now where elites demonize the populist position with such ferocity that many are afraid to voice their opinion at all, which is, of course, the entire point of their strategy. Our fight is no longer just over political issues — it is a battle against the very tactics being used by elites to stifle debate and destroy the essence of what makes America great.”

Feds Require You to Get Permission before Blogging or Posting on the Internet.

By Tom Rhodes, 6/8/2015

Guess what, you must now seek permission to from the Federal Government before you post a comment, blog, or post an article on the internet. Specifically the State Department has updated their International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which implement the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA). If you are blogging about your favorite hunting rifle, you have to get the government’s permission first. Want to brag about how accurate your double tap is and what you did to your Glock’s trigger to get good performance on the internet, if you don’t get government approval you are guilty of exporting firearms technical data.

Paragraph (b) of the revised definition in the ITAR regulations explicitly sets forth the Department's requirement of authorization to release information into the ''public domain.'' Prior to making available ''technical data'' or software subject to the ITAR, the U.S. government must approve the release through one of the following: (1) The Department; (2) the Department of Defense's Office of Security Review; (3) a relevant U.S. government contracting authority with authority to allow the ''technical data'' or software to be made available to the public, if one exists; or (4) another U.S. government official with authority to allow the ''technical data'' or software to be made available to the public.

So you chat on the internet about your experience building the totally legal and fun Ruger 10/22 Gatling Gun Kit, you now must have the government’s approval. The first Amendment is dead.

This is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. Now if you are going speaking at a trade show or gun show about the specifications of your gun product, you must seek prior approval from the government. Obviously this is going to end up in court, probably lots of courts. The idea that you cannot talk about the functionality (aka technological specifications) of the guns you own without government’s prior approval reeks of tyranny.

US Government Silences Political Speech

US Government Silences Political Speech
By Tom Rhodes, 9/23/2014

A U.S. Circuit Court has ruled that political speech is not protected. If those who don't approve of your speech threaten violence, the government has a right to silence you. The 9th U.S. Circuit court of Appeals now says preventing possible violence against you outweighs your right to free speech.

What the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled was that the government, in this case school officials of Live Oak High School, can prohibit students from wearing to school clothing featuring the American flag, because of threats made against those students, not because of any threats those students made.

Peacefully wearing a shirt with an American Flag to school because it might piss off criminal alien students can be punished by the government. That is sick. What the Court ruled is that the hecklers veto is legal, and not submitting to the threat of violence is illegal.

During the 2009 Cinco de Mayo celebration at Live Oak, school officials ordered the students to turn their shirts inside out or go home, apparently because Latino students at the school couldn't be blamed if they became incensed at the flag shirts and resorted to violence to express their outrage. A year later, during the 2010 Cinco de Mayo celebration, Mexican students confronted three American students wearing American flag shirts again. "Why are you wearing that? Do you not like Mexicans?" one asked. The Mexican students threatened violence. Rather than go after the criminal bullies threatening violence, the government officials took the easy and cowardly path of punishing the peaceful patriots? Instead of disciplinary action against the wrongdoers, they persecuted those who exercised free speech.

What this does is rewarded their thuggish behavior and incentivized further acts of violence. The court, by approving this horrendous decision, has now set a precedent. If you want to shut down people's speech, the best way to do it is to threaten or commit violent acts against the speaker. As Libertarians we are screwed. The NAP dooms us to lose.

That's right the Non-Aggression Principle, dooms us. The court has ruled that all any group needs to do to silence libertarian speech is to threaten to do us violence. To protect us and stop violence the Court has ruled that we can be silenced.

Nobody could argue that the students wearing American Flag clothing isn't political speech, especially on Cinco de Mayo, in a place with a large Latino population. The First Amendment doesn’t exist to protect politically popular and generally accepted speech, that speech needs no protection. The strongest protections of the First Amendment supposedly apply to political speech. Obviously the First Amendment is dead. If liberals were intellectually honest, they would join us in voicing disgust at this court ruling and petition the SCOTUS to overturn this horrible decision.

Next thing you know, the US will be like Canada and tell Christians they cannot share scripture if those passages might offend others to the point of provoking them to violence. Imagine in the USA the government making reading or preaching on Leviticus 18:22 illegal, because it may cause others to become violent. Substantively that situation only differs in content from what telling students they can’t where American Flag themed clothing.

We do have a choice, it’s a sick choice, but now a legal choice, we can credibly threaten statists promoting statism with violence, then use this court case as a precedent to silence leftist ideas. All we have to do is abandon the NAP.

Not going to Happen!!! As the Party of Principle, the Libertarian Party cannot and will not abandon the one thing we expect of Libertarians - acceptance of the Non-Aggression Principle. So soon expect the government to silence libertarian ideas using the excuse that such ideas publically expressed may upset a statist to the point they do violence, and preventing possible violence outweighs the right to free speech. It’s a sick end to the First Amendment and Liberty.

Libertarianism and Islam

By Tom Rhodes, 8/12/2014

There are not many but some in the Libertarian party who are ardent supporters of Islam. The LP is about liberty and freedom, and has very minimal standards. Basically agree with the non-aggression principle and can be a libertarian. There are millions of people who are Muslims but not radical Islamists. Most are nominally Muslim by birth or social construct, but are not practicing. Just like liberal pro-gay rights Christians, they aren’t really Christians as they must and do reject the clear teachings of the Bible. Most Muslims aren’t don’t really believe in Islamists and the Koran, as they reject many of its clear teachings. The clear teachings of the Islamic Holy writs, the Koran and Hadith, are incompatible with libertarianism.

As such I have some questions for any Muslim who claims to be a libertarian and claim to uphold the Five Pillars of Islam and believe in the divine inspiration of the Koran and the reliability of the Hadith, I’d love to hear your responses to these questions.

We often hear horror stories of little girls being married to older men, genital mutilation, and honor killings of women who allegedly brought disrepute on their families. Do you categorically and without qualification denounce the practices of child brides, clitorectomies, and honor killings?

It is undeniable that non-Muslims living in some Muslim countries have been reduced to severe second-class citizen status (dhimmitude, in full) and forced to pay the oppressive jizya tax. In some Muslim countries, they can be jailed or killed simply if someone accuses them of blaspheming Muhammad. Do you categorically and without qualification denounce these practices and endorce non-Muslims to live as complete equals in both our and other countries?

Do you unqualified and without reservation support freedom of speech, even speech that might be considered blasphemous to Mohamad?

Will you defend the right of others to speech that which you consider Blasphemous?

Do you categorically and without qualification denounce all calls to execute so called blasphemers of Mohamad, like Wilder and Rushdie?

This year the Muslim Association of Malawi (MAM) called for homosexual people in the
country to be given the death penalty. Do you categorically and without qualification denounce all calls to punish people for being homosexual?

In quite a few Muslim countries, conversion is forbidden under penalty of death. Do you categorically and without qualification denounce this practice and support the 1st Amendment that guarantees free and open religious interaction, denouncing all punishments of any kind for conversion?

The Islamic State has demanded that non-Muslims convert or die. ISIS is carrying out Christian executions and even crucifixions right now. Do you categorically and without qualification denounce the practice of forced conversions?

All radical Muslim groups want to enforce Sharia Law. Do you categorically and without qualification stand against the implementation of Sharia?

“The Hour [of Resurrection] will not come until you fight the Jews. The Jew will hide behind stones or trees. Then the stones or trees will call: ‘Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.’” is a famous Hadith. Do you categorically and without qualification state that Israel and the Jews have a right to exist?

I would love to get some direct answers from Muslims in the LP. The little dealing I’ve had with them is clear, they want different rules for Muslims than non-Muslims, they hem-haw and obfuscate supporting equal rights for everybody equally. We must consider a problem with answers by a person who claims to uphold the Five Pillars of Islam and believe in the divine inspiration of the Koran and the reliability of the Hadith. Islamic holy writs are pretty clear and grant Muslims the right and duty to lie to non-Muslims if it will further the cause of Islam.

So rather than simply accept the word, we must look at the actions of “moderate Muslims.” First and foremost I don’t expect honest, direct, answers to these questions. They will be qualified, or attacks on the questioner, or otherwise obfuscated and redirect with indirect answers. History is dotted with the likes of Mahmoud Abbas, who repeated the notorious actions the late Yasser Arafat who in English to Western/Israeli audiences routinely make lots of grand statements on peace but in Arabic to Muslim audiences routinely called for the eradication of Israel.

A vocal Muslim Libertarian argues that there should be separate court with separate rules for Islamists, and contracts Muslims enter should be treated differently and adjudicated differently than are contracts and laws for non-Muslims. Until and unless Muslims who claim to be Libertarian, openly and without qualification, call for all laws and all courts to treat everybody equally regardless of religion, sex, race, etc. their claims to be libertarian must be suspect. Unless we see moderate Muslims who claim to be Libertarian, openly and without qualification, publically denouncing the totalitarian and non-libertarian words, deeds, and actions of Islamists both here and abroad, their words must be suspect.

Right now it would be nice just to get clear unqualified answers to the above questions, that would be a start.

CCF Patriots Ordered Not to Share Constitution

By Tom Rhodes, 10/11/2013

According to a report from Young Americans for Liberty, a group with more than 380 chapters and 125,000 students promoting liberty, tried to give out copies of the US Constitution on Constitution day, The College of Central Florida in Ocala, was stopped because they didn’t have permission. In fact to exercise free speech and talk to others on campus the officer told students they would have to go through his office to get permission “any time you want to approach our students.”.

“We can’t hand out Constitutions?” an incredulous student asked.
“That’s right.”

Citing the need for “proper protocol,” the officer said students could submit a request, and school officials would “check our calendar, make sure it doesn’t conflict with what we’re doing, then we’ll approve it or deny it.”

The Young Americans for Liberty report is supported with this video.



Obviously the First Amendment at The state and federally funded College of Central Florida in Ocala does not apply. I hope they file charges in federal court against CCF and hold the officer and officials at CCF personally liable for infringing on these students rights.

The irony is the athletic teams at CCF are called The Patriots.



This means that CCF has told the Patriots Not to Share the Constitution with fellow Patriots. Irony?

Respected Atheist

By Tom Rhodes, 12/19/2012

Christopher Hitchens, an atheist worth respect. Unlike the current crop of panty-waste, wimpy, spineless, cowardly, pusillanimous, atheists whose feelings are so fragile the mere site plastic doll in a toy manger at the city park sends them into a funk so deep that they must petition the government to protect their fragile egos. The Wisconsin based Freedom From Religion Foundation, demanded that a nativity scene in Texas be taken down because Jesus was an "insult to human nature" because He taught that "men were sinners" and would one day be held accountable for their sins if they didn't repent and would be sent to forever simmer over the flames of Dante's House of Pain. This action is a far cry from the style and substance of the late Christopher Hitchens.

Christopher Hitchens rather than cry, whine, complain, and sue when he heard about carolers sharing “Silent Night” in a far away public place, would instead argue his point, engaging his fellow man without the shrill baby like crying and crocodile tears of today’s atheist. He would then trust the audience to decide. Even when he had his butt handed to him ,as when he debated Dinesh D’Souza, he remained civil, and showed a robust character worthy of respect. (Watch the debate here and decide for yourself)

I would think that atheists being willing to stare death in the face, mock God, and be completely willing to live their lives with no thought of the hereafter would be a tougher lot. But when a plastic doll in a poorly decorated cardboard box set to look like a Bronze Age feeding trough is enough to cause such anguish that they must petition the government to have such odious imagery removed from their vision. What next, is the atheist going to petition the government to stop the playing the overt Christian works of Bach, Handel, and Mendelssohn on NPR or in any public owned place? Atheists are stupid to think that the Christian stamp on the arts in the public will ever be eliminated. Unless, like the Islamists, they are willing to destroy all the temples, statues, and great works of art throughout history, what do the atheists propose to do to keep themselves and the world from being exposed to the Sistine Chapel, the works of Di Vinci, Angelo, or any of the other artists whose works so clearly display a Christian Worldview? Atheists will fail in erasing Christian influence in the public sector.

Atheists who want to ban Christian symbolism because they can’t accept what it represents, deserve no respect. They should be grouped with Islamists, and any others who think censorship of ideas they don’t like or approve is a viable means of promoting their beliefs. The impudence of atheists’ ideas and methods to eliminate Christianity from the public space is harmful to any who value liberty, and freedom. This kind of thinking has lead to our government to try and hold Christians accountable for the evil acts that other commit don’t like what Christians say. Imagine that in protest to a speech by Dinesh D’Souza talking about “What’s So Great About Christianity” that atheists riot and vandalize the building, and then the police hold D’Souza, not the rioters or those who promoted the riot, accountable for the damages done by the atheists?

Sound farfetched? That is exactly the new standard that our government is trying to impose upon all Americans by UN treaty (because they could never get a law passed that allowed such an abridgement of the First Amendment). This December, is highlighted by Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, negotiating a UN treaty that will put a “test of consequences” on speech and expression exercised in the USA. To put it succinctly, if a non-Muslim says something about Islam that Muslims don’t like and then Muslims proceed to riot or bomb or assault or kill, the non-Muslim will be held responsible for the damage and the crimes. Just imagine a local college newspaper publishes a cartoon showing Mohamed with a bomb in his turban in Walla-Walla Washington, and some Islamists riot and cause damage in Afghanistan because they saw it on the web, and the college student in Walla-Walla is held responsible for the murders in Afghanistan. If the US signs and approves a UN treaty with a “test of consequences” on speech and expression then the reporter covering the murder and genocide of Coptic Christians in Egypt, will go to jail when the local Muslims in Egypt riot over the images and story that show them murdering women and children. Even if the accounts are true and factual, the reporter will be held accountable for the actions of the rioters.

Christians have a distinctly different worldview. It is this worldview that upsets atheists and non-Christians to such a state that they would deny basic rights to freedom of expression those who have such a worldview. Modern apologist Dinesh D’Souza sums it up succinctly, saying, “Christianity makes sense of who we are in the world. All of us need a framework in which to understand reality, and part of Christianity's appeal is that it is a worldview that makes things fit together. Science and reason are seamlessly integrated in a Christian framework, because modern science emerged from a Christian framework. Christianity has always embraced both reason and faith. While reason helps us to discover things about experience, faith helps us discover things that transcend experience. For limited, fallible humans like us, Christianity provides a comprehensive and believable account of who we are and why we are here.”

The Christian world view allows Christians tolerate and accept those who don’t believe, and accept and promote the idea that all speech should be protected equally, even the speech of atheists. They don’t buy into the notion that there is some sort of right not to be offended, or right not to be made feel uncomfortable, or right to not have your beliefs challenged. This tolerance does not mean that they won’t criticize those whom they disagree, nor attempt to expose the moral depravity of some atheistic beliefs. This tolerance is however, what atheist uses to attack and attempt to remove the influence of Christianity from public spaces. If atheists are so fragile that the mere presence of Christian symbols in public around Christian holidays is grounds to bring the full force of government to bear against any who would not accept a secular humanistic belief system, how can they, with any credibility, fight for freedom of speech, freedom of belief, freedom of assembly, or freedom of thought in general? I long for the day that atheists, like Christians, defend the rights of all beliefs to express their beliefs in public, and debate them openly as Hitchens did; allowing people individually to decide for themselves the value of such ideas.

Most of today’s atheists like the Islamists cannot stand to have their ideas challenged. Their actions clearly indicate that they have no faith in the validity of their ideas. It is obvious that they must believe that atheist ideas would be damaged if subject to debate, criticism, or ridicule. Like Islam, their ideas fall flat when compared to Christianity, so they seek to silence Christianity. What is so bad about the Christian Message that they cannot tolerate it, or let others be exposed to it? If there is no God, then why do the actions and symbols of Christians, who in no way force or insist that others believe as they do, matter or impact atheists to such a point that they seek to censor and silence Christians? Is it the idea that God not man dictates what is moral and just? Is it the idea that we as individuals, not as a society, will be held accountable to be charitable to our fellow man? Is it the idea that God not man will hold each individual accountable for sin? Is it the idea that we are all sinners, and that repentance and acceptance in Christ, not the actions of man, determines our place in the hereafter? How do any of the basic tenants of Christianity do any harm to atheists?

Obviously many if not most of today’s atheists have no character, no conviction, and fear being challenged. Many if not most of today’s atheists cannot tolerate others having a worldview different than their own. One can disagree with, but still respect an atheist like Christopher Hitchens, he never called to have any Christian symbol removed, and openly and publicly debated and promoted his beliefs, and more importantly never tried to silence those who disagreed with him. Although I repeat myself, regardless of what you believe, atheists who want to censor Christian symbolism, deserve no respect.

Politifact Loses All Credibility.

Without using even a single outside source it is clear that Politifact has lot's it's credibility.

In claiming that the statement health care reform law a "government takeover" is a lie they clearly have to stretch the meaning of a lie and government takeover.

Here's what they said:

When government determines the limits of insurance coverage and medical fees and patient treatment through price controls, that's not a government takeover of health care. It may feel like one, it may have the same effect as one, but the federal government doesn't actually own the hospitals, clinics and medical practices. It just controls their prices and policies by controlling health insurance. Ergo, any talk of a government takeover of health care is not just wrong but a lie. Indeed, the biggest lie of the year.

To Politifact if the government doesn't own hospitals, clinics, and medical practices they haven't taken them over. They even admit that the Obamacare has the "same effect" as a government takeover, but because they don't actually "own" the physical property they haven't taken over health care.

Since when has taking over something equated to owning something. Lots of bullies have taken over a playground without owning the property. Nobody would argue that TSA hasn't taken over control of airport security without actually owning the airports.

Obviously the credibility of Politifact as a source to determine if a politician in telling the truth or not has been dramatically compromised. Politifact has lost its credibility, and cannot be trusted, especially if the subject in question concerns Obama and his policies.

Crime, Punishment and Justice

On November 15, 2010 the Associated Press reported the following:

DETROIT -- Michigan high school teacher Jay McDowell says he didn't like where the discussion was going after a student told his classmates he didn't "accept gays."

So McDowell kicked the boy out of class for a day.

In return, the teacher was suspended for a day without pay for violating the student's free speech rights...

The Constitution of the United States, includes a Bill of Rights, which doesn’t grant rights to anybody, but assumes people have the rights and severely limits the government from infringing on those rights. The US Constitution is not politically correct and does not place the ideas and speech of some people’s values over the ideas and speech of others. Wanting to instill a value of “tolerance” does not give the government or any of its agents, the right to stifle speech they don’t approve. That is exactly what Jay McDowell did when he threw the student out of class because he didn’t like the “where the discussion was going.”

It is a shame that a teacher was so intolerant and thought he had the right to punish a student for exercising his right to free speech. What is good is that he was rightly reprimanded and punished proportionately.

Far too often do we see disproportionate punishment for "crimes." The reason for a fine or punishment is to deter future bad behavior and offer restitution to the victim. In this case Justice was served; the minimal punishment did both. It affirmed that student's right to free speech, it sent the message to other students that the school would protect their basic civil rights, and deterred not only the McDowell but other teachers from infringing on the rights of other students in the future. More severe punishment would have been counterproductive, costly, and unjust.

Compare that to the punishment another student received when she had a plastic butter knife in her lunch box. The typical punishment for that offence is expulsion from school for having a weapon. This zero tolerance nonsense is not proportionate to what reasonable people would not even consider a crime. Whereas McDowell, as an agent of the government, clearly violated the civil rights of the student, in the other case a powerless minor committed no crime. It seems the punishment associated with zero tolerance government rules for minors is to instill a fear, and belief that the government has the authority and right to force you to obey any rule or regulations they want, and failure to obey will be severely punished.

We must as citizens all try to hold our government accountable, even the petty tyrants in our public school systems. We can and did hold our government officials accountable as reported in the news this week in the story of a middle school boy who was ordered to remove an American Flag he put on his bike to honor veterans.

Friday, 12 Nov 2010, 5:05 PM EST
SACRAMENTO - A boy in California is now allowed to ride to school with an American flag. Earlier this week, a middle school told 13-year-old Cody Alicea to take the flag off his bike. He was carrying the flag to honor veterans, like his own grandfather. He had been riding his bike with the flag for about two months.

The school district says the boy was asked to remove the flag because some students complained about it and apparently made threats.

School officials worried students would come to school with flags from other countries, sparking racial tension and possible violence. . .

Thank God for the uproar of the American people. The uproar forced the California school board to reverse its decision. I read in one account where a US Soldier in Afghanistan called the school board to complain. It was absurd for the government agents to think that they can deny a boy his civil rights because others didn’t like his expression. This is the so called hecklers veto. The first action should have been to focus on those students who made threats, not take away the rights of the student who violated no laws, nor rules, nor rights of another. But the government now says that because your exercise of your civil rights may upset others, and those others may do criminal things, you are responsible for the criminal actions of people who don’t want you to express an opinion or idea they don’t like.

How did this country get to the government that thinks it can silence citizens who express non politically correct ideas? It is hard to fathom how and why we accept a government that punishes a child who is threatened rather than hold accountable those who do the threatening.

We are teaching our children that their rights are not important, and that the government can take them away at will, without due process, without proof, without cause, just because zero tolerance and other stupid school rules make it easier for the school to maintain order. Contrary to Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law which says you have a right to defend yourself, the general rule in most schools that if you are caught fighting you are suspended. So if a high school bully with failing grades who doesn’t care about learning decides to pick on a good kid and the kid defends himself (or worse yet steps in to defend a smaller weaker kid from the bully), the victim (or defender) gets punished along with the bully. If you’re a white middle class kid, who’s only hope at college is an academic scholarship, then that 5 day suspension could cost you your GPA and thousands of dollars of scholarship funds and the bully gets what he wanted, out of school. The victim is assumed guilty and there is no due process, and no defense. The zero tolerance for fighting policy of most Florida schools punishes victims, and violates the civil rights of students. We are teaching our children: that they don’t have basic civil rights, that they must be cowards, they must never stand up for themselves or others, and meekly obey the government tyrants, or be punished. Regardless of what our Constitution says, our actions and the actions of our government are teaching our youth that the government does not protect individual civil rights, and that punishments are drastically disproportionate to the crime, if the crime is failure to obey the government.

This zero tolerance policy has but one purpose, to teach our children that they never have the right to use force for any reason and that the government (school) has a monopoly on the use of force, and that there are no limits to what authority can do. This zero tolerance policy also teaches that justice does not exist, and can be denied for the convenience of the authority. This is contrary to the US and Florida constitutions and laws but is exactly what the ruling elite what the public to believe. The idea that no individual has the right to use force for any reason is contrary to the Constitution, Declaration of Independents and even the Libertarian Party Platform; which states “The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. . . . and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of selfdefense.”

There is a need for legitimate authority, our children should be taught to respect those in authority, and obey all legitimate requests of that authority, BUT they should also be taught there are limits to government authority, what those limits are, how to respectfully stand up to the illegitimate exercise of authority, and when if necessary to use force to defend themselves or others. As citizens and parents, we must stand up for the rights of our children against the tyrannical excess of authority. If we want our future to have liberty, not an all controlling socialist nanny state, then this is where we start. Educating our children and protecting their rights. If students now coming of age and future generations believe that only the government has a legitimate claim to the use of force, that the government can silence ideas and speech they don’t like, and that it can deny justice for convenience, then we are no longer the home of the free and the brave, but the home to slaves.

I’m encouraged by the national uproar that forced one small government school district to uphold the civil rights of one boy. That uproar should be happening in every school district across the country. We must end the systematic attacks on civil rights, end stupid zero tolerance rules and insist that our schools teach the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the true meaning of Liberty and Justice for all.

Jail for Email

Widely reported on the internet, but absent the Alphabet Media, we find that the first amendment is dead, no longer valid, and expressing your dissatisfaction with a duly elected federal government official can earn you an indictment.

Bruce Shore, watching the Senate in inaction on C-Span, was angered when Bunning complained that, gosh, he has missed the Kentucky-South Carolina basketball game because he had to be in Congress to debate an unemployment-benefits bill. His Feb. 26 email in part said "Are you'all insane[?] No checks equal no food for me. DO YOU GET IT?"

The results are that on May 13, U.S. marshals appeared at Shore's door and handed him a grand jury indictment. He was indicted because Shore "did utilize a telecommunications device, that is a computer, whether or not communication ensued, without disclosing his identity and with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, and harass any person who received the communication."

Use a telephone, email, blog, tweet, etc. to "annoy" the person who receives the communications and you can go to jail. That's right send an email or fax to your duly elected official and if it annoys that official you too can be indicted by a grand jury.

To quote the infamous commentator Earl Pitts, "WAKE UP AMARICA!"

The government can make an example of one or two to try and shut up the American people, but 10 or 20 million of us will make it impossible for the government to do anything. Regardless of your political affiliation, this is an affront to your right to free speech. If they can send you to jail for an angry email to your congressman, then we have no freedom. We need to overwhelm the government, I urge everybody to send an email to all their federally elected officials saying "Are you'all insane?, DO YOU GET IT? What you’re doing effects me."

I agree with Hillary

To quote Sec. of State Hillary Clinton in her famous 2003 speach "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration."



dam dam dam dam dam!

I agree 100% with Hillary Clinton, I absolutly hate saying that.

dam dam dam dam dam!

Mark Harris on facebook beat me to posting this one.

Similarities between 1930's Germany and the USA today

Similarities between 1930's Germany and the USA today

Let's start with H.R. 675. This House resolution 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.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h675/show

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

Why does the DOD or some new Federal police force need the authority to execute warrants, make arrests and carry firearms? The FBI can already do that, and the Justice Department can prosecute federal crimes. I believe that the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act explicitly prohibits the Department of Defense from involvement in state and local law enforcement activities. So the whole reasoning behind HR675 just doesn't' make legal sense, and no where in any of the 28 powers authorized to congress is there a power to create a federal law enforcement agency. By the specific restrictions on the Federal Government in the 9th and 10th amendments tot he constitution the power to police is specifically restricted to the states or the people.

This sounds like Obama is trying to do exactly what he told us he'd do when running for office. Form a national police force that is not accountable to the people but accountable to Him, didn't Germany do that in the 1930's? If I remember my pre-PC history, I believe that Hitler did the same thing, it was called the Gestapo.

The first amendment to the US Constitution says that congress shall pass no laws infringing on the right of the people to peaceably assemble. So what is an unlawful assembly? Any assembly the government doesn't approve? This HR wants to prevent "unlawful assemblies", didn't Germany do that in the 1930's. Those laws were used to arrest those how tried to protest against the Nazi party.

Earlier in this blog I wrote about Democratic congress persons claiming that those who would actually hold elected officials accountable and publicly tell them they would vote them out of office if they vote raise taxes are Terrorists.. They are trying to use a revamped version of the Fairness Doctrine to shut down Talk Radio, and proposing other laws to shut down blogs, etc. to restrict what the press can and can't say or who can and can't say what. Didn't Germany do that in the 1930's.

There are several bills before congress that would require the registration of all firearms, didn't Germany do that in the 1930's.

Obviously because current police and military have taken an oath to protect the constitution and the people, and are held accountable if they execute unconstitutional orders, the Democrats in Washington want to create this federal police force.

Obviously the virtues independence and individual freedom are not those of the Democrats and power mongers in Washington. Government control seems to be the virtue they most want cherish.

Talk Show Hosts are Terrorists!

I know this is from California, the land of fruits and nuts, but WOW!. Karen Bass (D-LA) Speaker of California’s Assembly said the following when asked "How do you think conservative talk radio has affected the Legislature's work?".

The Republicans were essentially threatened and terrorized against voting for revenue. Now [some] are facing recalls. They operate under a terrorist threat: "You vote for revenue and your career is over." I don't know why we allow that kind of terrorism to exist. I guess it's about free speech, but it's extremely unfair. - Karen Bass (D-LA)

So law makers now think people who hold lawmaker accountable through the ballot box, and actually express that opinion on the radio (and probably other media like this) are terrorists. Bass just got caught saying this out loud.

This is what leftists think, it’s even worse in colleges and universities where students have been turned into the police and investigated for saying and talking about ideas the left doesn’t want others to hear. The web site for The Fire - Foundation for individual rights in education, is filled with dozens of stories about students being punished if it doesn’t agree with the left.

This isn’t just a California problem. Congress is pushing HR 1966 which would make blogs which “intimidate” others a crime. Some say this blog does that. I’m sure it could be used to shut down those who would want congress persons recalled if they vote to raise taxes, as that is intimidating to a member of the legislature.

Make sure when you vote, you know where you candidate stands on free speech.

Rush, Hannity, and Beck are all Wussies

Michael Savage, the number 3 talk show host in the USA, has been banned from traveling to England, because some hatefully leftists are afraid that taking his opinions out of context, will upset the Muslim population, and lead to violence.

Voltaire said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Rush, Hannity, Beck, the RNC and most of the media wether liberal or conservative are silent, on the suppression of one of the great minds of our era. Not only are they not defending Savage, they haven't even mentioned this atrocity.

Law professor and columnists Ellis Washington made a great point about this in his www.wnd.com column today. He closed his article as such:

"It is my prayer that conservative talk radio set aside their fears, jealousies and silent acquiescence to the fascist blacklisting tactics of Britain and unite with Savage's righteous cause, defending freedom of speech and freedom of expression in England, in America and throughout the world."

I agree.

HR2159 - Deprives you of your rights without Due Process

We have a very scary problem in Washington. If you don’t have a gun go buy one, NOW! In a very short time you may not be allowed to purchase a firearm.

HR2159 - GRANTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE AUTHORITY TO DENY THE SALE, DELIVERY, OR TRANSFER OF A FIREARM OR THE ISSUANCE OF A FIREARMS OR EXPLOSIVES LICENSE OR PERMIT TO DANGEROUS TERRORISTS.

The Summary says - `The Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii) if the Attorney General determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.'

As seen in previous posts on this blog the Department of Homeland Security says that right-wing extremists are our greatest danger. They define that as “groups or individuals who are vehemently opposed to illegal immigration, particularly along the U.S. southwest border with Mexico”; who “are highly critical of the U.S. Government’s response to illegal immigration and oppose government programs that are designed to extend “rights” to illegal aliens, such as issuing driver’s licenses or national identification cards and providing in-state tuition, medical benefits, or public education”; who are “antigovernment and reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority”.

This law will enables the federal government to suspend a person's Second Amendment rights without any trial or legal proof and only upon suspicion of being "dangerous." According to documents by DHS, dangerous right-wing extremists are people who are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use.

What’s worse is you may not be able to fight the government if (when) they do deny you your second amendment right, because when you read the details of HR2159 you find that the AG can not only deny, an applicant the ability to purchase a firearm, but can deny showing the documentation and reasons for denial to the court based on “National Security”.

The government is trying to do away with silly notions like Innocent until proven guilty, due process, right to confront your accuser, etc. They are trying to find ways to do what they want and circumvent the Constitution of the United States of America.

It may be too late but don’t stand by and do nothing, contact your congressman and senator and let them know that you oppose HR2159, and any laws that deprive citizens of their civil liberties, especially those laws that deprive citizens of rights just because of their views.

Thought Crime legislation scheduled to be voted in the US House.

H.R. 1913 - Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009

This is a sick piece of legislation, and more evidence that Obama and the Democratic party are pushing the USA to a fascist state. It is illegal to mug, rape, murder, assault, and liable people. This law clearly violates the Fourteenth Ammendment to the US Constitution which guarantees equal protection under the law. Based on how the victim perceives the thoughts and motivation of the perpetrator, the punishment for the crime will be enhanced.

If somebody mugs you, they should be punished for the act of mugging you. It shouldn't matter their motivation for mugging you, it is a violation of your rights, and their actions that are punished. What's worse is if your words can be conscrued to encourage others to commit crimes then you can be prosicuted for a "Hate Crime" under HR1913.

Translation, if you quote certain verses of the bible which condem homosexuality, and somebody who heard you assaults a GLBTG person then you can be convicted of a hate crime. This will shut down religous discussion and discourse and silence anybody who doesn't agree with the radical homosexual agenda. This law clearly violates not only the Fourteenth, but also the First Ammendment to the US Constitution.

How adults stimulate and pleasure one another is strictly their business, and there obviously should be no laws restricting what consensual adults do to each other. That’s part of individual liberty and regardless of the lifestyle a person chooses to live, so long as they don’t force it upon others they should be frees to live it. But just as homosexuals or any other group of people should be free to promote their lifestyle and ideas there should be NO LAW silencing viewpoints that they don't agree with. This law would make it illegal to disagree with virtually anybody. If you believe in liberty you have to not only put up with the KKK’s racist crap, but defend their right to say it, regardless of how distasteful their opinions and words are.

HR1913 as written could allow federal prosecutors to target Christians who teach that homosexual behavior is sinful and that Islam is a false religion. It is a backdoor tool from the far left and radical homosexuals to shut down legitimate free speech from people who oppose their lifestyle. This law criminalizes thought because they demand enhanced penalties due to the "perception" of the victim by the perpetrator. It appears to be on group of people forcing others to accept their beliefs. It is no different than if they passed a law making it illegal to speak out against gun ownership, or criticizing the Federal Government.

Wait a minute didn’t the Dept. of Homeland Security just put out a document claiming that people who: oppose illegal immigration, support the literal meaning of the Second Amendment, believe in constitutionally limited government, oppose the killing of unborn babies, support U.S. sovereignty and independence, to be “dangerous” and send out a memo to local and state law enforcement to be on watch for “right-wing extremism”.

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

If HR1913 passes, if you speak, or worse yet, think in a manor not approved by the government, you can be charged with a crime. 1984 is here, just a couple decades later than Orwell predicted. With this law people can be jailed for what they say.
Congress, Obama and the people he has put into power are bringing us closer and closer to a fascist state.