Newsflash: SCOTUS upholds plan language of the Constitution.

By Tom Rhodes, 1/23/2012

In a unanimous decision Monday the Supreme court ruled that the police must obtain a warrant before attaching a GPS tracker to person's vehicle. This is evidence that contrary to all available evidence there are limits to government power and authority. This case tested the boundaries of how far government can go in using new technologies to monitor the whereabouts of the people.

The plain language of the 4th Amendment is clear. It states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The mere fact that the government would consider adding a device of any kind to a person's private property to monitor anything without probable cause is a clear indication that, on the whole, the government no-longer considers a person's private property to be of consequence. The government didn't argue that placing a GPS device on a person's car wasn't a violation of rights, but argued that attaching the tiny device to a car's undercarriage was too trivial a violation of property rights to matter, and that no one who drove in public streets could expect his movements to go unmonitored. Thus, the technique was "reasonable," meaning that police were free to employ it for any reason without first justifying it to a magistrate, the government said. To the government your rights are "trivial."

Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority concluded that the Fourth Amendment's protection of "persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" extends to private property such as an automobile.

Justice Samuel Alito split from fellow conservatives holding that the search violated not just property rights, but also individual's "reasonable expectation of privacy." The same justification the court has used since 1967, when it held that warrants were required before police could wiretap a call made from a public telephone booth because "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places." He warned that a property-based approach was too narrow to guard against the proliferating threats to personal privacy modern technology posed.

It is nice to see that the SCOTUS in some cases still protects the rights of the people over the government. Too bad the SCOTUS isn't consistent in protecting our property rights from search and seizure, they still accept the idea that any cash you have is the government's unless you can prove that cash didn't commit a crime. Without probable cause nor evidence nor due process, if you carry cash it can be confiscated as drug money. Monday's decision should be celebrated as a good step in the right direction, but we still have too many laws that put the government's "interests" above the rights of the people.

The Republicans Will Betray the TEA Party

I usually don’t make predictions, I hope and pray that I am wrong but I do not believe we will see much if any change in our government even if there is a GOP landslide tomorrow. The mainstream press has convinced the majority of the American electorate that there is a right-left struggle going on between the Democrats and Republicans. They even favor the left. They have it wrong. The struggle in the USA is between a few ruling elite (regardless of party) and the average person. The Democrats headed by President Obama are openly socialistic, and make no bones about taking away individual liberty for the good of society (better known as their corporate sponsors). The Republicans pay lip service to being conservative, but their actions are far from it. They simply put a conservative spin on their fascist and socialist policies dictated by their corporate sponsors.

Observing the actions of both parties, one would almost suspect that they would prefer feudalism, with themselves as the benevolent ruling elite. None of the actions of either party reflect a belief that the government is or should be of the people, by the people and for the people. Look at the viscous attacks made at average people who dare to run against the ruling elite. The response of the GOP to O’Donnell and Angle are prime examples. You can feel the disdain from the party for the people who would dare not choose the ruling elite’s anointed candidate. Make no mistake about it the Republicans and Democrats are run by bluebloods who do not want and will actively attempt to stomp out any opposition that isn’t from their ruling elite club (or at least bought and paid for by the bluebloods).

The TEA Party, is an honest grass roots uprising of the American populace that originated as a non-partisan tax revolt targeted at too much government spending. Voxday in is weekly column said “The tea partiers are political innocents, for the most part, which is why they are now being so easily co-opted by a Republican establishment that has expertly harnessed the energy of tumult among the grassroots in decades past.” He also predicts that the TEA Party may be one of the GOP’s biggest enemies by 2012. I agree, because the GOP has repeatedly shown that it is only loyal to the dollar and keeping power and not to principle.

I predict that the Republicans will betray the TEA Party once they are back in power because they will not address the most pressing problems facing the nation; namely the restoration of individual private property rights, root causes of our economic down turn, rule of law, immigration, and our constant state of war. I believe they may exacerbate many of the problems facing the nation.

1) Private property rights. Republicans offer nothing on this, they can and will work to protect corporate property rights, but when it comes to individual rights they remain silent or worse yet rule against the individual. They routinely support taking property from people without due process, where it is cash (which they say must be drug money with no proof), or excessive regulations which limit what you can do with your property, they do not stand for individual property rights. Their lips say they support your rights but their deeds say they support more government.

2) The economy. Republicans voice nothing but empty and meaningless double talk. There is not a single word from a Republican leader on the secrecy of the Fed, pension-fund shortages and state bankruptcies. With a rare exception of Ron Paul the GOP does not support a fiscally sound dollar, and it appears that they plan on printing more money to pay off the national debt. Do you believe that the Republicans will let California go bankrupt, let the tens of thousands of California government workers lose their pensions, and use it as an example for other states to adopt smaller government and lower tax models like Texas’ or do you believe they will work with the Democrats to find some way to have the federal taxpayer (that’s you) bailout California, and the other states which are technically bankrupt?

3) Rule of Law. The Republicans defense of big banks when caught committing massive mortgage fraud, is a clear indicator that the GOP will actively protect the big banks from being forced to suffer the clear legal consequences of their criminal actions. They do not support the rule of law. They are no different in acting like elitist snobs who consider themselves above the law, than the Democrats. They have been just as likely as the Democrats to exempt themselves and their cronies from laws that everybody else must follow.

4) Immigration. Clearly the Republicans are talking out both sides of their mouth. They won’t vote for securing the border, or for limiting social welfare programs for immigrants, or support enforcing existing immigration laws. The GOP wants open borders for a differ reason than the Democrats, but the result is the same. The GOP want to keep a surplus of low skilled labor in the country to keep labor prices down for their corporate sponsors, while the Democrats want more low income people to add to the government dole eager to increase voters who support bigger government. Although theoretically open borders is the most libertarian of ideas, the reality is that no country that doesn’t defend its borders and control immigration lasts for long. Its enemies have easy access and its will lose its cultural identity, and those who immigrate who don’t have a culture of libertarian ideas, will soon suppress liberty. The message on what immigrants who want to be successful in America should do is “Learn English and adopt American Values.” The old model of a melting pot was superior to and more successful than the current “cultural diversity” model.

5) Constant State of War. The Republicans use a constant state of war, whether real or artificially created, to justify massive expenditures, and intrusive control of the US population. They support invading and occupying other nations regardless of the cost, and rationale. It is better to fight terrorism outside US borders, but nation building is not and should not be the goal of our country. If the people of another country want liberty and democracy, they let them get it the same way we got it; Fight for it themselves. Our military should be given clear military objectives, not social engineering objectives. The military’s job is, and should be limited to, defending the USA and its allies, or conquering our enemies. Nation building, social engineering, and other non-military objectives should not be a part of our Military. The Military is a tool of FORCE, period. If the objective is not to use FORCE then it should not be the Military’s job. They are not called the armed FORCES for nothing. The constant state of war, is not only hugely expensive, but provides an excuse to trample the rights of the American people. The Republicans who brought us the unPatriot Act are not going to try and end our constant state of war which gives them so much power.

The Republicans don’t have a Philosophy of Liberty anymore than the Democrats. Their loyalty is to their power and the good of their sponsors, this will become evident in due time. Because their loyalty is not to the people of the USA, my prediction is the result of tomorrows election will put the GOP in control of congress which will tehn betray the TEA Party who elected them. When they do, ask your self is there a political party of principle? Is there a political party that believes you know what’s best for you, not some ruling elite in Washington? Is there a political party that actually espouses the values that this country was originally founded?

Please watch this video The Philosophy of Liberty. If Liberty and what it means is something you believe in and would rather have than some “Nanny State” taking care of you; then support your local TEA Party (which is not a political party) and examine the platform and beliefs of some of the third parties, and help end the Republican and Democrat strangle hold on American politics. The Republicans and Democrats are just two sides of the same big government coin, and like that coin are becoming worth less and less. The Republicans will betray you, I for one hope that after you see that GOP has betrayed you that you look at the party of principle, the Libertarian Party.

Since when you vote tomorrow your individual vote is not of any real significance (no one person’s vote can or will change an election), then why not vote for your heart ,take a principled stand and vote for anybody besides a Democrat or Republican, preferably a Libertarian. But send a personal one vote message to both major parties that you’re fed up with them, and vote for a third party, the Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, Green Party, an independent, - Hell, vote for the “Rent is Too Damn High” party. Just don’t vote Republican or Democrat if you have a choice, you’ll feel better for sending the message. You don’t need to feel guilty, sense it’s obvious that the Republicrats and Demicans don’t worry about you, you don’t need to worry about them.

Maybe there is Hope!

Here in Citrus County there are definite signs of hope. The electorate showed up for the primaries with over 30% of the people and trashed incumbents. The “Good Ol’ Boy” network in Citrus County has been shaken to its core.

We the people of Citrus County Fired:

Commissioner Gary Bartell, and put in John “JJ” Kenney as the candidate of choice. Bartell was a 20-year incumbent who had never lost a political race in Citrus County.

Commissioner John Thrumston a virtual yes man for Republican money men, will not be running again. Rebecca Bays will represent the GOP in the elections in November. Rebecca is a strong conservative with some libertarian leanings and was a far better choice than Thrumston.

School board member Lou Miele, a nice guy but not a leader and will not serve a third term. Thomas Kennedy, a parent with students in the school system, will be a welcome addition.

State Rep. Ron Schultz in a close race lost to Jimmie T. Smith, a conservative Republican with libertarian leanings. Schultz a consummate GOP insider, was hammered on tax issues and his voting record.

Maybe the political elite in Citrus County will see that the people are fed up, and that elections can no longer just be bought.

Now all we need to do is get the Socialist School Board Superintendent fired. If you don’t know, in 2008 Crystal River High School was awarded $100,000 for its innovations by the Gates Foundation, but Superintendent Sandy Himmel wouldn’t allow CRHS to accept it because the other schools wouldn’t be fair to the other schools. CRHS put a lot of effort and hard work into applying for and earning that Gates Foundation grant, but because the other high schools failed (or even tried) to meet the high standards required for the award. CRHS was taught a valuable socialist lesson by the superintendent hard work and innovation are only good, desired, and approved, if everybody wins. Competition is not allowed. This is the same lesson we have taught our kids by ending valedictorians, soon we’ll stop keeping score in football games.

Thank you Citrus County for taking notice of what’s going on and firing Incumbents, there is hope that the people still have some voice and are willing to put people who stand for liberty into office.

The Coming of Caesar

The Coming of Caesar
By Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson
November 16, 2009

[Bloggers note: This is an article that I wish I could claim I wrote. I didn't, but I'm glad somebody did.]

We have a problem. This could be “the big one”—bigger than coping with the Ahmadinejads, Kims, and Chavezes of the world and bigger than our current economic woes. Our republic, our society, may be heading for a crackup. We are bankrupt, both financially and politically.

The source of the problem is democracy. Decades of so-called “progressive” thought have led us to abandon the limited-government, constitutional republic established by our founding fathers. In the name of putting more power into the hands of "the people," the government has arrogated sweeping powers.

There is a famous passage (possibly cobbled together from several separate statements and authors) that explains democracy’s fatal flaw, the inherently self-destructive element that caused our founding fathers to distrust democracy (google “James Madison on democracy” for more):

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

Crude, majoritarian democracy (as in, “there are more of us than there are of you, so we’re going to redistribute your wealth”) inevitably undermines the harmony of society. A free market, as competitive as it is, is based on peaceful, voluntary cooperation. When commerce is free and unfettered by government interference, both sides to a transaction normally gain, thereby promoting social harmony.

Democracy, by contrast, engenders social conflict. Money changes hands by force of the taxman and the threat of imprisonment, not voluntarily. Democracy pits citizens against each other in a sordid squabble whereby many strive to have the state confer benefits seized from their fellow citizens.

Today, Washington redistributes trillions of dollars annually, so the capital is swarmed by battalions of lobbyists, representing myriad special interests, each trying to secure more political rent from government than what government takes from them. As the late, great economist Hans Sennholz described it, the democratic "transfer society" resembles the absurd spectacle of a circle of people, each trying to pick his neighbor’s pocket. How can there be social harmony when everyone is trying to rip off someone else?

This process of using government to extract wealth from other citizens (dubbed “legal plunder” by the 19th-century French economist Frederic Bastiat in his brilliant essay, “The Law”) has reached the point where Uncle Sam is essentially bankrupt. (See “We’re Broke.”) With government spending and deficits soaring under the present administration, the day of reckoning approaches. If foreigners should decide to cut their losses and balk at financing any more of our debt, either interest rates will soar, collapsing the economy, or the Fed will monetize all the debt, collapsing the dollar and the economy.

Can that day of cataclysm be postponed? Perhaps the wealth-redistribution system can be kept on life support a while longer, if government can confiscate a much larger share of the middle class’ wealth (yes, the middle class, because there aren’t enough rich people to finance all of Uncle Sam’s promises) or by dramatically slashing benefits.

When that momentous day arrives, there will be a lot of angry Americans. One might say that the so-called “social contract” will be broken, but the problem is, there isn’t just one such “contract.” There are two, and they are fundamentally and irreconcilably opposed to each other.

One “contract” is the government’s long-standing promise to support those in need. Many Americans have been taught to believe that they are entitled to a share of other people’s property, even if they have contributed nothing of value to society themselves and have made poor choices. The other social “contract” is the traditional implicit promise of America: namely, that if you work hard, you are entitled to the fruits of your labor.

When a financial crackup occurs, those who have been taught to depend on government will demand continued government benefits. If government fails to provide them, those demands could turn violent. On the other hand, if government moves to confiscate a significant chunk of whatever wealth remains in the hands of an already-hurting middle class, then millions of peaceful, law-abiding, hard-working Americans may finally reach the breaking point and rebel, as our forebears did in the 1770s, against a government viewed as abusive and oppressive.

How bad could it get? If the social order breaks down, civil unrest could disrupt markets and shortages of essential goods could occur. The resulting chaos could trigger martial law. A strong leader—a Caesar—could institute some sort of command order. Millions would resent it, but it would be accepted, because the alternative—civil conflict, chronic disorder, and impending starvation—would be intolerable. In such a calamity, Caesar would be the lesser of two evils. The American Republic and Constitution would join earlier democracies in the ashbin of history.

God help us.

Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson is an adjunct faculty member, economist, and contributing scholar with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.

Tools to "Teach" Citizenship

Why so many are upset about our education system.

Here is an example of teaching aids from EdHelper.org, an example of how citizenship is taught in the USA LINK

Being a Good Citizen By Phyllis Naegeli 1 What is a citizen? If you were born in the United States, you are a citizen. That means you are a member of our country. Sometimes people who are not born here want to become citizens. They do this by asking the government to make them a citizen. This is called naturalization. 2 When you are a citizen you have rights. Rights are special privileges the government gives you. In our country, you have free speech. You are also given the right to choose a religion. In America, the press is free to tell you what is happening in the world. The Bill of Rights lists the freedoms given to citizens. These rights are very important. Many people in the world do not have freedoms like we do. 3 Because the government gives us rights, we have the duty to be good citizens. But, what does it mean to be a good citizen? How can you be a part of giving back for the freedom you have?

A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others. The concept of a right carries with it an implicit, unstated footnote: you may exercise your rights as long as you do not violate the same rights of another—within this context, rights are an absolute.
Since when did rights become "special privileges the government gives you"?

Forget what the Declaration Of Independence says, Forget what the Constitution says, Forget what the Federalist Papers said about what the constitution means.

Our schools are teaching our children that the Government grants rights, therefore you have a Duty to the government.

Kids can and do get through high school without ever reading the Declaration of independence. They are taught and believe that the Government gives them rights, and that the Government has power over individuals, not that the government is grated very limited powers from the people for specific purposes.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Not being taught these words and what they mean it's no wonder the young people today don't understand Liberty. They don't even understand the fact that We the People not the government have the power and authority. That we created a constitution so that, the people, not the government, are in control of our own lives.

The people established a constitution that gives the government a few distinct and limited powers. Not that the government has all the power and gives rights to the people.

The preamble establishes why and what kind of government we wanted.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

How do we ever expect this experiment in liberty called the United States of America is to ever survive, if we are teaching our children that rights are gifts of the government and not unalienable?

Know Your Rights - what you can do when talking to the government

The 2010 census is coming up, and if your even the slightest bit cantankerous you might not fill out form they mail you. You might not fill out the second form they mail you. They will then send somebody to your door to ask you the questions.

Now that's not so bad but by law you are required to answer the census. Now the good news, the law also states that agents of the government can be required to provide you with information if requested, before you can be required to answer their questions.

The amount of info you can require, and ask about is extensive. You not only can use this form for agents like the Census takers, but any other government agent who is questioning you. Kind of cool, put them through what they put you through.

Some bright people have compiled an nice questionnaire you can have the government agent fill out. (at the bottom are links to several versions)

Search the net using:

THE PUBLIC SERVANT QUESTIONNAIRE

Key Points:

• An American does not have to speak with a government agent unless the citizen has been arrested.


• Americans have a right to privacy, to be left alone.


• The PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 (Public Law 93-579), empowers citizens to require full, written disclosure from a government official who seeks information.


• You may insist on complete disclosure as a precondition to speaking with any government official.

The Limits On Federal Power:

• Law-abiding citizens are sometimes visited by agents of the Federal government for no apparent reason. It is helpful, at the time of these visits, to recall that unless a citizen has been placed under arrest (either because a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe the citizen has committed a crime or because the officer has in his possession an arrest warrant issued by a judge who believes there is probable cause the citizen has committed a crime, a citizen does not have to entertain the company of government agents.


• Citizens also have the right, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, not to testify against themselves. Thus, when "the government" comes knocking on one¹s door, you have the right to simply say, "Please go away." Unless the government officer places you under arrest (there must be probable cause, or an arrest warrant based on probable cause), the officer must obey your wishes.

Be Helpful.... On Your Terms

• Of course, citizens also have a vested interest in assisting "the government" in its role of crime-solver. Most of us understand the need to help "the government" to apprehend criminals. But it is also helpful, when "the government" arrives at your place of employment or at your home, to know how to find out why government agents have appeared on YOUR doorstep.


• A handy little questionnaire that I came across years ago will do the trick. It¹s called the "Public Servant Questionnaire." A version following the link. The "PSQ" was developed by Lynn Johnston, author of Who's Afraid of the IRS? (Libertarian Review Foundation: 1983, ISBN 0-930073-03-7).


• The PSQ is based on the requirements placed upon the government by the Privacy Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-579), an amending law to Title 5, United States Code, Section 552, and is included as Section 552a.


• If a citizen chooses to cooperate with government officials who are seeking information, BEFORE questioning begins, the citizen should politely inform the government agent or agents that a prerequisite for the citizen's cooperation with "the government" is the agent¹s cooperation with the citizen.

Do It Right, The First Time

• The questions should then be put to each agent, and the citizen should enter the answers onto the questionnaire. Copies should be provided to each agent, either at the time of the questioning or by mail to the agent after the visit. The questionnaire informs the government agent that the citizen knows his rights and knows which limited powers the government agent has been granted by the people.


• Most probably some government agents will not want to fill out or sign the PSQ. That’s fine. They can then be sent on their merry way. They may need to explain to their superiors, and a court of law, and a jury, on another day, why they refused to cooperate with the reasonable questions of the highest officeholder in the land, a citizen.

Click Here for PSQ version 1

Click Here for PSQ version 2

DHS declares you to be dangerous

By now you've probably heard that you are a person of interest who should be scrutinized by your local, state, and federal law enforcement. If you believe in liberty, then you have been labeled as dangerous and should be watched.

DHS document here

Go read the Dept. of Homeland Security's (DHS) assessment which declares anyone who opposes abortion, gun control, illegal aliens, or supports Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin is defined as a violent right-wing extremist. If you’re a member of or support the Libertarian party, or the Constitution Party, or are even a Republican with conservative views, the Secretary of DHS has identified you as a dangerous and notified law enforcement that you should be watched.

There was palpable exuberance in Jeane Garofalo, as she spoke with Keith Olbermann, stating that tea party protests weren't about taxes or spending at all, but the protestors were white racists. She justified the undocumented, unsupported DHS assessment and claimed that conservative political views were dangerous, and those holding them should be watched.

Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., wrote a biting letter to Secretary Napolitano. He was "dumbfounded" that such an "assessment" had been sent out. He asked the secretary for a review and whether the civil liberties section of Homeland Security had approved the "assessment." It turns out that the civil liberties section was overruled by Secretary Napolitano, who ordered the "assessment" sent to local and state law enforcement agencies.

Thus the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, under the authority and approval of President Obama has declared people critical of the current admin, or people who voice opinions promoting liberty and libertarian or conservative ideas to be dangerous. As such the Obama administration and has asked local and state law enforcement to “scrutinize” it’s own people, while shaking hands with and making friends with the dictators of the world. What does this say about the current administrations and the fact that in writing it doesn’t trust you and is willing to have law enforcement “scrutinize” you if you don’t agree with him?

Ask a question Get Arrested

More evidence of US becoming Fascist State

Are you really free in your person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. The 4th Amendment says you are, but apparently the TSA doesn't think so. You are expected to explain why, you have what you have, where your going, what your doing, and allow the government to look through your stuff when ever the want. Just having a legal possession can trigger arrest.

From dictionary.com
Arrest: the taking of a person into legal custody, as by officers of the law.

Here's a terrible story about the government arresting a man because he had the temerity to ask if he was legally required to answer questions about his possessions. The possession in question was cash.



Here's a question, by what constitutional authority does the government have to arrest a person for having any legal possession? Or by what authority does the government have to make cash illegal?

We are slipping into tyranny a little bit at a time, are you going to allow it to happen?

April 18th - Tea Party

If your happy with government stay home. If not show your displeasure on April 18th at the Old Court House in Inverness at Noon. Not sure that the Tea Party Movement is real. Then check the hundreds of news articles, blogs, and web pages your self (CLICK HERE).

Can't wait until Sat April 18th, that's OK as you can go to two in Ocala on the 15'th, or any of hundreds across the state. For more information on tea parties and other ways to resist the socialization of America you can "Join the Resistance" at "The Patriotic Resistance" The network for idea-based resistance to Obama-led socialistic agenda.

I know this movement isn't part of the Libertarian Party, it's better than that. This is a movement starting with the people of the United States, not the parties, not the UN NGO's but the people. To quote Lew Rockwell I can assure you that at the heart of the movement is a largely spontaneous and genuine populist and even libertarian spirit.

Some interesting reads on Tea Parties.

Today’s Tea Party Movement Has A Lot In Common With the Sons of Liberty

Budget Debate Launches New Tea Party


Tea Parties in the News



Although we are not sponsors for or started the Citrus County Tea party. Look for me, Greg, and others of the Libertarian Party to be there Sat. April 18th.

Fairness vs Liberty

Start of Ben Shapiro's article Titled The 2nd French Revolution

"Every old ideological conflict eventually becomes new again. So it is with today's battle between the forces of socialism, called "fairness" by its advocates, and the forces of capitalism, labeled "liberty" by its supporters. What we are witnessing is an ancient struggle between those who believe in the rights of the individual and those who believe in a sort of "general will." Those of conservative bent ardently hope for a second American Revolution; those of the left wish desperately for a second French Revolution.

This is not mere rhetoric. Look at the history of the first American Revolution, and you will see the fundamental principles that animate Rush Limbaugh; look at the history of the first French Revolution, and you will see the spirit that animates President Barack Obama."

Please go read all of Ben Shapiro's artilce, he clearly defines the battle between going on for the political future of this country.

I love the quote he uses in John Adams' Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, ratified in 1780, provides the basic framework for American governing philosophy: ""All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness." The purpose of the government is to secure these rights.

Where do you stand on liberty vs fairness?

Wildlife Officer performs illegal search

A routine stop in the Richolm area of the Withalacoochee State Forest. Officer sees person. Officer turns on lights. Officer stops person (for no other reason than being in state forest). Officer smells pot. Officer searches vehicle and finds Pot. Officer officer arrests person.

For a long time the state wildlife officers have been working under the assumption that if your in a wildlife area they can search you. In a state-owned wildlife management area, officers regularly check to make sure people are obeying hunting and fishing regulations. Such stops are called "resource inspections."

The appellate judges wrote that the officer hadn't observed the suspect hunting or fishing and didn't see any guns or fishing poles, still believed he had the authority to detain anyone for a regulatory inspection in the wildlife management area.

Wildlife Commission rule authorizes its officers to do regulatory inspections. The problem is that Wildlife Commission rule is not law, and cannot supercede the state or national constitution.

2nd District Court of Appeal judges said such broad power conflicts with state law.

"We have found no statutory authority for a wildlife officer to stop a citizen for a regulatory inspection without any reasonable suspicion that the person is violating any law or wildlife regulation," the opinion says.

It's a shame that Pasco judge rejected this argument and it had to go the appellate court.

The good news is that the 4th amendment is valid and even wildlife officers have to have probable cause to stop and/or search people even in wildlife management areas.

Full court opinion here