Showing posts with label Civil Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil Rights. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 12, 2021
Brain Farts from the Interwebz:
Timely musing of the upcomming second Civil War found on the Web recently.
Those who claim these deplatformings and bannings are not censorship "because private corporations" are being disingenuous. A corporation is not an actual person, it is a government entity that is deemed "a juristic person" by the government. Corporations are not people, they have no unalienable rights, and it is long past time for the people to begin reining them in.
Governments won't let you leave Big Tech, and create your own spaces. The solutions to "hate speech," "missinformation," "fake news," all require Big Tech to stay big because only the very largest companies can afford to implement the systems these laws demand.
Establishment Republicans. They are like the Washington Generals. They are patsies for the Harlem Globetrotters.
Leftist elites and their minions are going to find out Trump wasn’t protecting us from them. It was protecting them from us. And their escalating the repressive measures and getting the potted plant to declare us thought criminals is only going make things worse.
What is the point of trying to maintain the Union with people who wish to "re-educate" you?
Facebook Suspends Ron Paul Following Column Criticizing Big Tech Censorship: By suspending Ron Paul, it becomes clear that ‘safety’ may not be Big Tech’s primary goal.
We can all agree that because Congressman Steve Scalise's attempted assassin was radicalized by the teachings of Rachel Maddow, Bernie Sanders and Nancy Pelosi, they and their followers should be banned.
I'm old enough to remember when the Internet wasn't a group of five websites, each consisting of screenshots of text from the other four.
The, "If you don't like it go make your own" idea is now dead. The elites have now said, "What, we didn't mean for you to actuall make your own. You can't do that, you have to use what we control."
The formation ofthe USA, with the first words of our constitution "We the People" was a slap in the face to the our ruling betters. Since then they have been trying to wipe out the idea that you should have the liberty to determine how you should live. They can't (and obviously won't) allow true indipendent people to be elected. It's now to the point they can, and have, rigged the election results and expect you to accept them.
When the alleged victor is scared enough to want to silence everyone else? It’s bad. They’re scared. They are also nearly invincibly stupid.
The First Amendment protects against government censorship. But in 2020, most political debate happens on large social-media platforms. Facebook and Twitter are the modern public square. Thus, if our society’s commitment to free speech is to have any meaning, our government must constrain large social-media companies from censoring Americans’ lawful speech.
Poland protects freedom of speech better than the USA. Their Justice Minister, Zbigniew Ziobro, announced last month that the Polish government would enact a law constraining Big Tech from censoring their citizens. Polish users who are victims of censorship can go to a new Polish court, get an injunction forcing the company to restore their account and their content, on penalty of a fine of as much as 1.8 million euros.
The destruction of the freedom of speech in America today is being carried out by the Leftist establishment that dominates the political sphere, the social media giants, the establishment media, the educational system. The Left is using the Capitol riot of January 6 as its Reichstag Fire moment to criminalize, silence, and destroy utterly not just President Trump, but all Americans who still dare to oppose its sinister woke totalitarianism.
The Establishment has decided to address the grievances of people who feel disenfranchised, silenced, and subjected to double standards with much more disenfranchisement, silencing, and double standards.
Monday, November 2, 2020
'Fugitive Slave Act' Shackles Runaway Rappers
Will Alexander| Stolen: Nov 02, 2020 from Townhall.com
Liberal masters and overseers took the whip to a few saucy runaways who had the gumption to think they could escape the Democrats’ ideological plantation. The public whippings are designed to make other slaves think twice about thinking for themselves.
Whenever high-profile intellectual slaves flee the plantation, gaggles of barking bloodhounds track them down, threaten them, and use intimidation and extreme defamation to drag them back home. It’s become an unwritten Fugitive Slave Act used to perpetuate the left’s peculiar institution: intellectual slavocracy.
Intellectual slaves are people who hide their true convictions for fear of retribution from ideological slave masters and overseers. They’re given unbridled freedom on political issues as long as they stay within plantation boundaries. Overstep those boundaries, and you get a beating. No exceptions. No excuses. No escape.
Three of the most daring escapes were attempted recently by three rappers: Curtis James “50 Cent” Jackson III, O’Shea “Ice Cube” Jackson, and Dwayne Michael “Lil Wayne” Carter, Jr. They all got whipped, but their reactions to the beatings were different: Cold (50 Cent), lukewarm (Ice Cube) and hot (Lil Wayne).
50 Cent read that Joe Biden’s tax plan would confiscate 62 percent of his income. His gut reaction?
“WHAT THE F***! (VOTE ForTRUMP) IM OUT,” 50 Cent wrote in one of several tweets. “I don’t care [if] Trump doesn’t like Black people 62% are you out of ya f****** mind [?],” ... I don’t want to be 20cent.”
For as long as it took to send that tweet, 50 Cent inhaled the exhilarating air of freedom. But as he was exhaling, plantation bottom-feeders unleashed the bloodhounds.
“I had to remind him (50 Cent) that he was a black person,” said ex-girlfriend Chelsey Handler on the Tonight Show. “So he can’t vote for Donald Trump, and that he shouldn’t be influencing an entire swath of people who may listen to him because he’s worried about his own personal pocketbook.”
Others called 50 Cent a sellout and vowed to boycott his Power TV crime series.
“We won’t forget you sold us out even after the election,” said one tweet. “G Unit gear is trash … as well. Boycott all this waster does.”
The whippings worked. 50 Cent went cold. After less than a week as a fugitive, he ran back to slave territory. Rather than saying what he really thinks, he now thinks what slavers want him to think.
“Fu*k Donald Trump,” 50 Cent tweeted. “I never liked him …” He also blasted Lil Wayne for tweeting a picture of himself with Trump, writing: “I WOULD HAVE NEVER TOOK THIS PICTURE.”
OK, Curt. Say what you have to. But when you vote, go with your gut.
The verdict is still out on whether O’Shea “Ice Cube” Jackson remains a free thinker. That’s been challenged. Over the years, he’s authored a bombardment of angry, uneducated anti-Trump invectives – many too vile to repeat – but at least they were his genuine thoughts.
“I will never endorse a mothafu*ka like Donald Trump! EVER!!” he tweeted back in 2016. That was before Trump delivered unprecedented results to the black community; results that may have forced the rapper to rethink the media’s voodoo doll version of Trump.
Ice Cube met with Trump’s people in stealth mode, but plantation hounds soon picked up a scent that he had run off. Word spread that he was “working with Trump” to incorporate some of his “Black Contract With America” into the administration’s Platinum Plan.
Plantation overseer D.L. Hughley, a virulent Trump-hater, said the rapper is not qualified to speak for blacks; that he’s in over his head; and that by working with the president, he’ll end up killing his career because Trump “uses black people as props” and throws them away once he’s done.
Ice Cube gave Hughley the middle finger.
Others called Ice Cube a “sellout,” an “Uncle Tom,” a “coon” and denounced him for going to the “Darkside.”
So Ice Cube blitzed multiple media outlets to set the record straight. In nearly every interview, Ice Cube’s “Black Contract” took a backseat to reporters poking and prodding to see whether he had warmed up to Trump. He never confessed.
“I’m not playing politics with this,” he said. “I’m willing to meet with anybody who could bring this to life and make it a reality.”
OK O’Shea. But if you’ve warmed up to Trump and won’t say so because of the whippings, you’re not thinking freely. Taking the middle road will never be enough for these thought tyrants. So if you’ve had a “Malcolm X moment” that you’re keeping to yourself for fear of the thought masters, you’re still shackled to plantation rules.
Of the three rappers, Dwayne Michael “Lil Wayne” Carter, Jr. was the only fugitive to make a clean getaway. After tweeting a picture of himself with Trump, praising his performance, and saying he’s “a really nice guy,” thought masters pulled out the whip and regurgitated the usual litany of threats and epithets. So far, he’s still off the plantation.
But Lil Wayne has a history of jeopardizing the security of the plantation.m He’s said that all police shouldn’t be blamed for what one policeman did to cause George Floyd’s death. In another interview, he shared a story about how a white policeman saved his life when he was 12 – a cop he affectionally calls “Uncle Bob.”
“I don’t know what racism is …” he said. “I have never witnessed racism.”
He’s also said that the name Black Lives Matter makes no sense to him and that the group has nothing to do with him because he’s rich.
While it may seem small in the grand scheme of things, the rappers’ gesture toward Trump is signaling that a watershed moment is coming for the abolition of black intellectual slavocracy. The turning point for all three rappers came after they focused more on the real-life implications of policies, rather than on personalities or party politics.
When blacks begin to do that in droves, public whippings will not be enough to keep them shackled to the infantile policies of the Democrats’ ideological plantation.
Friday, February 16, 2018
Why Liberty Is Dangerous
By Tom Rhodes 2/16/2018
There has been another violent tragedy in the USA leaving 17 innocent children dead. Once again leftists are using it as an excuse to try and take away the rights we cherish. Because as a nation we established a government that valued individual liberty over security, preventing mad men who’ve committed no prior crimes from heinous acts is impossible, PERIOD!
The USA is unique among all the nations, our Preamble is a slap in the fast to every ruling elite who has ever lived. Saying: We The People … to secure the blessings of liberty … do ordain and establish our government. Creating a government with divided powers and very limited powers and specifics defining fundamental rights the government was prohibited from infringing upon.
Three keys to the USA that don’t exist in the rest of the world and are the basis for our government are the Rule of Law, Presumption of Innocence, and Fundamental Rights. To talk about gun laws, arresting the mentally ill, and what we can do, we must first understand and define these principles.
Because we all are endowed by our creator with Fundamental Rights, and we insist and restrict our government to follow the Rule of Law, and are all considered Innocent Until Proven Guilty; we are all in danger of mad or evil people committing gross acts of violence. Due Process given to all to protect their liberty, means that the government must prove, before a jury, where the accused can present witnesses and bring on experts, before any fundamental right can be restricted.
The USA is unique, We the People do not have to seek permission from the government to exercise our rights, rather the government must first prove individuals, through their actions, should have those rights restricted. Being reasonable some restrictions on the means of exercising our fundamental rights serve a compelling interest to We the People. Your fundamental right to travel, doesn’t obligate the government to supply you with the means of travel, nor does it grant you the right to operate a 2 ton rolling motorized carriage without demonstrating your ability to do so. The requirement for a driver’s license is not restriction is not on your right to travel, only on the means you choose to travel. It is reasonable to restrict operating a motor vehicle to those old enough to do so safely, and those who understand how to do it safely, and who have demonstrated the ability to do so.
We the People specifically included the Fundamental Right to keep and bear arms in the Bill Of Rights, not to allow pioneers to have a rifle to shoot deer, and protect themselves from brigands. Rather the government was purposefully restricted from infringing upon that right so that We the People had the tools to stand up against and overthrow our government should it become tyrannical. We’ve already allowed the government to restrict individuals far more than the purpose of the second amendment allows.
We have a choice. Be free and enjoy Liberty, or be secure. History has repeatedly shown that those who sacrifice liberty for security, end up with neither. Unfortunately there is evil in this world, and there will always be a few who will abuse their rights. The idea that we should give up due process, have to prove we are innocent to exercise a Fundamental Right; the idea that there should be laws for people in the government and different laws for mere citizens; the idea that we should sacrifice our Fundamental Rights for the security of the state, or for individual safety; should all make us cringe in horror.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death, doesn’t mean except for access to XXXXX because it might scare others or somebody thinks it dangerous. The freedom to access guns, drugs, fast cars, bicycling without a helmet, etc. comes with accepting the fact that Liberty is Dangerous. The alternative is to give up our Fundamental Rights for the appearance of security. As the mass shooting in France at the Bataclan theater clearly demonstrate, laws restricting fundamental rights don’t keep us safe from mad or evil men.
Those calling for “gun control” are fear mongers who want to be taken care of and don’t value their liberty, they believe that it is better to be safe and secure. They hate the idea that the average person should, without the approval of their betters, be allowed to own guns, choose to ride a bike without a helmet, smoke, eat red meat, own a big truck, sell lemonade from their front lawn before the big game, feed the poor in their neighborhood, scares them. They believe others should dictate how the masses should live. That is tyranny and evil. Statists, as exemplified by the Democrats, will use every evil act that occurs as an excuse to exercise more control and attack liberty. As for the Republicans, they will always sacrifice rights after whining, as they are cowards and won’t stand for anything, the past 50 years have proven they won’t conserve anything.
If you want to further restrict arms for the average citizen, there is an easy process. You can have the limits placed on government from infringing upon our right to keep and bear arms removed. Just pass an amendment. But know if you try, there are 100,000,000 gun owners who will fight you and that process. We prefer Dangerous Liberty Over Peaceful Slavery.
There has been another violent tragedy in the USA leaving 17 innocent children dead. Once again leftists are using it as an excuse to try and take away the rights we cherish. Because as a nation we established a government that valued individual liberty over security, preventing mad men who’ve committed no prior crimes from heinous acts is impossible, PERIOD!
The USA is unique among all the nations, our Preamble is a slap in the fast to every ruling elite who has ever lived. Saying: We The People … to secure the blessings of liberty … do ordain and establish our government. Creating a government with divided powers and very limited powers and specifics defining fundamental rights the government was prohibited from infringing upon.
Three keys to the USA that don’t exist in the rest of the world and are the basis for our government are the Rule of Law, Presumption of Innocence, and Fundamental Rights. To talk about gun laws, arresting the mentally ill, and what we can do, we must first understand and define these principles.
Fundamental Rights
Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws encroaching on a fundamental right generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional.
The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment are considered Fundamental Rights. These rights include:
The right to due process
The right to freedom of speech
The right to freedom of religion
The right to privacy
The right to marry
The right to interstate and intrastate travel
The right to equality
The right to assemble
And the right to keep and bear arms
Presumption of innocence
The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. One of the most sacred principles in the American criminal justice system, holding that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. In other words, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each essential element of the crime charged.
Rule of Law
The rule of law is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by arbitrary decisions of individual government officials. It primarily refers to the influence and authority of law within society, particularly as a constraint upon behavior, including behavior of government officials.
Because we all are endowed by our creator with Fundamental Rights, and we insist and restrict our government to follow the Rule of Law, and are all considered Innocent Until Proven Guilty; we are all in danger of mad or evil people committing gross acts of violence. Due Process given to all to protect their liberty, means that the government must prove, before a jury, where the accused can present witnesses and bring on experts, before any fundamental right can be restricted.
The USA is unique, We the People do not have to seek permission from the government to exercise our rights, rather the government must first prove individuals, through their actions, should have those rights restricted. Being reasonable some restrictions on the means of exercising our fundamental rights serve a compelling interest to We the People. Your fundamental right to travel, doesn’t obligate the government to supply you with the means of travel, nor does it grant you the right to operate a 2 ton rolling motorized carriage without demonstrating your ability to do so. The requirement for a driver’s license is not restriction is not on your right to travel, only on the means you choose to travel. It is reasonable to restrict operating a motor vehicle to those old enough to do so safely, and those who understand how to do it safely, and who have demonstrated the ability to do so.
We the People specifically included the Fundamental Right to keep and bear arms in the Bill Of Rights, not to allow pioneers to have a rifle to shoot deer, and protect themselves from brigands. Rather the government was purposefully restricted from infringing upon that right so that We the People had the tools to stand up against and overthrow our government should it become tyrannical. We’ve already allowed the government to restrict individuals far more than the purpose of the second amendment allows.
We have a choice. Be free and enjoy Liberty, or be secure. History has repeatedly shown that those who sacrifice liberty for security, end up with neither. Unfortunately there is evil in this world, and there will always be a few who will abuse their rights. The idea that we should give up due process, have to prove we are innocent to exercise a Fundamental Right; the idea that there should be laws for people in the government and different laws for mere citizens; the idea that we should sacrifice our Fundamental Rights for the security of the state, or for individual safety; should all make us cringe in horror.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death, doesn’t mean except for access to XXXXX because it might scare others or somebody thinks it dangerous. The freedom to access guns, drugs, fast cars, bicycling without a helmet, etc. comes with accepting the fact that Liberty is Dangerous. The alternative is to give up our Fundamental Rights for the appearance of security. As the mass shooting in France at the Bataclan theater clearly demonstrate, laws restricting fundamental rights don’t keep us safe from mad or evil men.
Those calling for “gun control” are fear mongers who want to be taken care of and don’t value their liberty, they believe that it is better to be safe and secure. They hate the idea that the average person should, without the approval of their betters, be allowed to own guns, choose to ride a bike without a helmet, smoke, eat red meat, own a big truck, sell lemonade from their front lawn before the big game, feed the poor in their neighborhood, scares them. They believe others should dictate how the masses should live. That is tyranny and evil. Statists, as exemplified by the Democrats, will use every evil act that occurs as an excuse to exercise more control and attack liberty. As for the Republicans, they will always sacrifice rights after whining, as they are cowards and won’t stand for anything, the past 50 years have proven they won’t conserve anything.
If you want to further restrict arms for the average citizen, there is an easy process. You can have the limits placed on government from infringing upon our right to keep and bear arms removed. Just pass an amendment. But know if you try, there are 100,000,000 gun owners who will fight you and that process. We prefer Dangerous Liberty Over Peaceful Slavery.
Friday, June 9, 2017
Bernie Sanders Commits Impeachable Offense
By Tom Rhodes, 6/9/2017
Bernie Sanders violates the Constitution making a religious test a qualification to be confirmed by the Senate.
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
During Wednesday's, confirmation hearing for Russell Vought, President Trump’s nominee for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, Senator Bernie Sanders said a Christian who believes in the bible is unfit for public office.
The Bern is pissed because Vought dared to write a basic tenant of the Christian faith, writing, “Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God who is fully divine (and became fully human).” Vought wrote. “If Christ is not God, he cannot be the necessary substitute on our behalf for the divine retribution that we deserve.”
In Luke 10:16 where Jesus said, “The one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” Based on that Vought noted, "Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned."
Duh!! Christianity is based on the fact that there is only one path to salvation, that path is through Jesus Christ. If you don't believe that you are not a Christian. Whether you believe that or not, whether you are a Christian or not, is totally irrelevant, merely stating a fundamental principle of your faith neither qualifies nor disqualifies anybody from any office or public trust.
The Bern is saying that if you, as a Christian, actually believe in the exclusivity of Christianity, then you are not qualified for office or public trust. Clearly he is adding an unconstitutional religious test to Senate approval. Vought’s words about the exclusivity of his Christianity, was clearly the reason why the Bern found him an unqualified to be deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, saying “I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who is what this country is supposed to be about.”
The Bern has made it clear if you are a Christian, willing to publically affirm basic Christian beliefs, you do not qualify for office or public trust,. Doing so he has put religion as a test for government office a unambiguous violation of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. As such Bernie Sanders has violated his oath of office and should be impeached from the US senate.
Bernie Sanders violates the Constitution making a religious test a qualification to be confirmed by the Senate.
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
During Wednesday's, confirmation hearing for Russell Vought, President Trump’s nominee for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, Senator Bernie Sanders said a Christian who believes in the bible is unfit for public office.
The Bern is pissed because Vought dared to write a basic tenant of the Christian faith, writing, “Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God who is fully divine (and became fully human).” Vought wrote. “If Christ is not God, he cannot be the necessary substitute on our behalf for the divine retribution that we deserve.”
In Luke 10:16 where Jesus said, “The one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” Based on that Vought noted, "Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned."
Duh!! Christianity is based on the fact that there is only one path to salvation, that path is through Jesus Christ. If you don't believe that you are not a Christian. Whether you believe that or not, whether you are a Christian or not, is totally irrelevant, merely stating a fundamental principle of your faith neither qualifies nor disqualifies anybody from any office or public trust.
The Bern is saying that if you, as a Christian, actually believe in the exclusivity of Christianity, then you are not qualified for office or public trust. Clearly he is adding an unconstitutional religious test to Senate approval. Vought’s words about the exclusivity of his Christianity, was clearly the reason why the Bern found him an unqualified to be deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, saying “I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who is what this country is supposed to be about.”
The Bern has made it clear if you are a Christian, willing to publically affirm basic Christian beliefs, you do not qualify for office or public trust,. Doing so he has put religion as a test for government office a unambiguous violation of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. As such Bernie Sanders has violated his oath of office and should be impeached from the US senate.
Tuesday, April 4, 2017
Matt’s Torturous Path
by Pete Bloome, 4/3/2017
On 24 March, Congressman Matt Gaetz told a Shark Tank interviewer “I agree with the President we ought to have every option on the table when it comes to advanced interrogation techniques.” In plain English, advanced interrogation means torture. He thinks torture should be a legal tool of the United States used by the President. That is a self-destructive mistake for the country.
I’m sure Matt doesn’t see it that way. With the war on terror, torture has gained some undeserved popularity. He knows this topic hits an emotional hot button with a lot of folks. Every radical Islamic terrorist attack somewhere stokes a common desire to fight fire with fire. TV shows have gritty public servants thrashing bad guys to within an inch of their lives to find the kidnapped girl. The scariest story line of all is the maniac with an atom bomb who won’t tell people where it is, and it has to be beaten out of him. People want simple solutions, and Matt Gaetz gives it to them. Of course, he doesn’t mention the horrendous price we pay for doing so.
Legalized torture is dangerous to that precious thing known as the American way of life. With the word out that we will use torture, our enemies will be less likely to give themselves up. That will lead to the unnecessary death of our soldiers. It sets the stage for revenge attacks in a never ending cycle of retaliation. It removes any semblance of moral superiority from our legal or military actions. It turns its back on hundreds of years of the progress of civilization starting with the Crucifixion, and violates reams of existing law. It doesn’t recognize individual rights, only the force of the State over a person. It caters to mob rule. The innocent can suffer as readily as the guilty. In addition, it doesn’t work. When Secretary of Defense Mattis stated that “beer and cigarettes” were better than enhanced interrogation techniques, he wasn’t just speaking morally. The Air Force taught me a person under torture will say anything, do anything, to stop it. John McCain himself made all sorts of bogus admissions to crimes on North Vietnamese Radio under torture. These kinds of limitations make the whole idea unreliable in the extreme.
Legalized torture would be like introducing cancer into our Republic. It causes physical and mental lasting harm, with no remedy, to people who could be innocent. It trashes due process. It won’t even work, but it is popular. And to think Matt wants to give such power to the President, a separate and supposedly equal branch of the government. You have to ask yourself, what do we become if we do embrace torture and its threat to liberty? H.L. Mencken wrote to every problem there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong. Legalized torture is that kind of solution.
Matt Gaetz is an educated man, lawyer, and officer of the court, but he chose political expediency over representation, tough words over a clear vision, and dangerously advocating an ever increasing Federal power to impose its might over the individual. His cynicism in supporting such a policy is both overwhelming and heartbreaking at the same time. The First District is chock full of people who are at the tip of the military spear. It makes me wonder if he ever bothered talking to them at all.
The lawyers I’ve known say it used to be considered better to let a guilty man go free than let an innocent man suffer under the law.
As a Congressman, Matt Gaetz has chosen a new path, and it ain’t pretty.
Pete Blome is Chair of the Northwest Florida Libertarian Party and a retired military officer
On 24 March, Congressman Matt Gaetz told a Shark Tank interviewer “I agree with the President we ought to have every option on the table when it comes to advanced interrogation techniques.” In plain English, advanced interrogation means torture. He thinks torture should be a legal tool of the United States used by the President. That is a self-destructive mistake for the country.
I’m sure Matt doesn’t see it that way. With the war on terror, torture has gained some undeserved popularity. He knows this topic hits an emotional hot button with a lot of folks. Every radical Islamic terrorist attack somewhere stokes a common desire to fight fire with fire. TV shows have gritty public servants thrashing bad guys to within an inch of their lives to find the kidnapped girl. The scariest story line of all is the maniac with an atom bomb who won’t tell people where it is, and it has to be beaten out of him. People want simple solutions, and Matt Gaetz gives it to them. Of course, he doesn’t mention the horrendous price we pay for doing so.
Legalized torture is dangerous to that precious thing known as the American way of life. With the word out that we will use torture, our enemies will be less likely to give themselves up. That will lead to the unnecessary death of our soldiers. It sets the stage for revenge attacks in a never ending cycle of retaliation. It removes any semblance of moral superiority from our legal or military actions. It turns its back on hundreds of years of the progress of civilization starting with the Crucifixion, and violates reams of existing law. It doesn’t recognize individual rights, only the force of the State over a person. It caters to mob rule. The innocent can suffer as readily as the guilty. In addition, it doesn’t work. When Secretary of Defense Mattis stated that “beer and cigarettes” were better than enhanced interrogation techniques, he wasn’t just speaking morally. The Air Force taught me a person under torture will say anything, do anything, to stop it. John McCain himself made all sorts of bogus admissions to crimes on North Vietnamese Radio under torture. These kinds of limitations make the whole idea unreliable in the extreme.
Legalized torture would be like introducing cancer into our Republic. It causes physical and mental lasting harm, with no remedy, to people who could be innocent. It trashes due process. It won’t even work, but it is popular. And to think Matt wants to give such power to the President, a separate and supposedly equal branch of the government. You have to ask yourself, what do we become if we do embrace torture and its threat to liberty? H.L. Mencken wrote to every problem there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong. Legalized torture is that kind of solution.
Matt Gaetz is an educated man, lawyer, and officer of the court, but he chose political expediency over representation, tough words over a clear vision, and dangerously advocating an ever increasing Federal power to impose its might over the individual. His cynicism in supporting such a policy is both overwhelming and heartbreaking at the same time. The First District is chock full of people who are at the tip of the military spear. It makes me wonder if he ever bothered talking to them at all.
The lawyers I’ve known say it used to be considered better to let a guilty man go free than let an innocent man suffer under the law.
As a Congressman, Matt Gaetz has chosen a new path, and it ain’t pretty.
Pete Blome is Chair of the Northwest Florida Libertarian Party and a retired military officer
Saturday, May 9, 2015
Just Shut Up!
Repeat of old post that is so important it is worth your time to read it again
By Tom Rhodes, 6/21/2013
In Salinas vs. Texas, the SCOTUS has just ruled that the government can use a person's silence against them if it comes before he's told of his right to remain silent. Justice Samuel Alito said. "It has long been settled that the privilege 'generally is not self-executing' and that a witness who desires its protection 'must claim it.'" Read More Here What this means is that under no circumstances should you ever talk to the police, even as a witness to a crime - PERIOD!
The SCOTUS has ruled cops can lie to you to get you to talk. What is plainly obvious is that our government cannot be trusted, therefore there can only be one response to any question by any law enforcement officer of any type. "I'm sorry officer, but in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling that says what I say as a witness, even my silence as a witness, may be used against me unless I specifically invoke my 5th amendment rights, I must now inform you that I'm invoking my 5th amendment right and will not answer any questions. I know this makes your job harder, but for my own protection I must invoke my 5th amendment right and cannot answer any of your questions. Even as a witness to a crime, by merely talking to you puts me in jeopardy. So without written documentation by a judge who has jurisdiction saying that nothing I say can or will be used against me and a lawyer present for my protection, I cannot answer any of your questions. Am I free to leave?"
Talk to any law enforcement officer and you'll soon detect the "Us Vs. Them" mentality, they assume everybody is a criminal and have to prove they are not. Law enforcement is not your friend anymore. They can and will lie, cheat, and coerce to prove a person is guilty of something. Since it is virtually impossible for you, or any business to actually follow all the laws we now have, it is vitally important that you protect yourself from the government. This video explains exactly why you should never under any circumstances talk to any government official. Watch the whole thing and play close attention to how the cop explains how he can and will trip you up.
FYI - In Florida you are not required to give your name unless being detained for a crime. You are free to refuse casual conversation with LEO's and walk away. Ask, "Am I being detaiend, Am I free to go." until you get a direct answer. Remember LEO's have the legal right to lie and deceive you. If a LEO can not articulate probable cause for a specific crime you are not legally obligated to answer any questions including identifying yourself. You do not have to present ID except: when driving you must provide your driver's license if requested; when hunting or fishing you must present your hunting or fishing license if requested; when carrying a concealed weapon must have in your possession your CCW permit.
The reality is even if you've done nothing wrong and are completely honest talking to law enforcement could lead to your arrest and imprisonment. Under no circumstances is it ever in your best interest to answer any law enforcement officer's questions for any reason, so don't.
By Tom Rhodes, 6/21/2013
In Salinas vs. Texas, the SCOTUS has just ruled that the government can use a person's silence against them if it comes before he's told of his right to remain silent. Justice Samuel Alito said. "It has long been settled that the privilege 'generally is not self-executing' and that a witness who desires its protection 'must claim it.'" Read More Here What this means is that under no circumstances should you ever talk to the police, even as a witness to a crime - PERIOD!
The SCOTUS has ruled cops can lie to you to get you to talk. What is plainly obvious is that our government cannot be trusted, therefore there can only be one response to any question by any law enforcement officer of any type. "I'm sorry officer, but in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling that says what I say as a witness, even my silence as a witness, may be used against me unless I specifically invoke my 5th amendment rights, I must now inform you that I'm invoking my 5th amendment right and will not answer any questions. I know this makes your job harder, but for my own protection I must invoke my 5th amendment right and cannot answer any of your questions. Even as a witness to a crime, by merely talking to you puts me in jeopardy. So without written documentation by a judge who has jurisdiction saying that nothing I say can or will be used against me and a lawyer present for my protection, I cannot answer any of your questions. Am I free to leave?"
Talk to any law enforcement officer and you'll soon detect the "Us Vs. Them" mentality, they assume everybody is a criminal and have to prove they are not. Law enforcement is not your friend anymore. They can and will lie, cheat, and coerce to prove a person is guilty of something. Since it is virtually impossible for you, or any business to actually follow all the laws we now have, it is vitally important that you protect yourself from the government. This video explains exactly why you should never under any circumstances talk to any government official. Watch the whole thing and play close attention to how the cop explains how he can and will trip you up.
FYI - In Florida you are not required to give your name unless being detained for a crime. You are free to refuse casual conversation with LEO's and walk away. Ask, "Am I being detaiend, Am I free to go." until you get a direct answer. Remember LEO's have the legal right to lie and deceive you. If a LEO can not articulate probable cause for a specific crime you are not legally obligated to answer any questions including identifying yourself. You do not have to present ID except: when driving you must provide your driver's license if requested; when hunting or fishing you must present your hunting or fishing license if requested; when carrying a concealed weapon must have in your possession your CCW permit.
The reality is even if you've done nothing wrong and are completely honest talking to law enforcement could lead to your arrest and imprisonment. Under no circumstances is it ever in your best interest to answer any law enforcement officer's questions for any reason, so don't.
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
Hobby Lobby vs. Critical Thinking
By Tom Rhodes, 7/2/2014
Liberals are all upset that Hobby Lobby won in the Supreme Court. I firmly believe that most of the left today have their hearts in the right place, but let their emotions override their ability to think. Their big angsts seem to be they don’t want to let their bosses into their bedroom and that somehow this decision is unjust.
The only way you can accept their argument that declining to pay for something is the same as "blocking access" to it, and the only way you can accept that argument is to say that people have a right to free birth control. If you believe that then allowing some employers to violate that right because of their religious beliefs should be considered unjust. The problem is that there is no such right as a right to free birth control. Worse yet the exact wording and nature of the ACA is clearly sexist.
There is no provision to pay for men’s birth control, and no provision to force insurance to cover vasectomy surgery for men, while birth control and tubal ligation for women must be covered. There is no rational way to justify a right to forcing others to pay for women’s birth control, but not to pay for men’s. Any rationalization is simply sexist, supporting the feminine imperative.
The entire case is predicated on two conflicting feminist positions. The idea that women can force their boss to pay for their birth control and that their boss has no right to stick his nose in their bedroom. The reality is when somebody pays for something they have a right to some control of what they are paying for. Saying that Hobby Lobby had no right to control what health care services and products it purchases for its employees is the same as saying that government has no say in what medical procedures it will pay for under Medicare or the ACA. Those paying have the right to choose what they purchase.
This is a prime example of liberal lack of critical thinking. There is no up swell and call by men to force insurance companies to pay for their prophylactics and vasectomies. The reason is clear, men know their sex life is nobody else’s business, and men know if they ask somebody else to pay for it, that somebody else will have a say in it. As soon as liberals decided that paying for women’s birth control must be covered by insurance they invited those who pay for that insurance into their bedroom. Be it your employer or the government, those who pay for something have a say in what they pay for, including birth control. You want the government and your boss out of your bedroom, quit asking them to pay for your bedroom activities.
You have the right to do whatever you want with whomever is willing to join you in that activity in your own bedroom. You don’t have the right to force others to subsidize your sex life. If you are going to ask others to pay for your bedroom activities, then they have a say in those bedroom activities.
What the supreme court said in the Hobby Lobby case was, a woman’s boss has no business in her sex life, so she can’t make him pay for it if he doesn’t want to. The idiocy of the SCOTUS decision was they based it on freedom of religion, instead of basing the decision on the fact that people have not granted the government the power to dictate that women’s sex lives must be subsidized by others.
Liberals are all upset that Hobby Lobby won in the Supreme Court. I firmly believe that most of the left today have their hearts in the right place, but let their emotions override their ability to think. Their big angsts seem to be they don’t want to let their bosses into their bedroom and that somehow this decision is unjust.
The only way you can accept their argument that declining to pay for something is the same as "blocking access" to it, and the only way you can accept that argument is to say that people have a right to free birth control. If you believe that then allowing some employers to violate that right because of their religious beliefs should be considered unjust. The problem is that there is no such right as a right to free birth control. Worse yet the exact wording and nature of the ACA is clearly sexist.
There is no provision to pay for men’s birth control, and no provision to force insurance to cover vasectomy surgery for men, while birth control and tubal ligation for women must be covered. There is no rational way to justify a right to forcing others to pay for women’s birth control, but not to pay for men’s. Any rationalization is simply sexist, supporting the feminine imperative.
The entire case is predicated on two conflicting feminist positions. The idea that women can force their boss to pay for their birth control and that their boss has no right to stick his nose in their bedroom. The reality is when somebody pays for something they have a right to some control of what they are paying for. Saying that Hobby Lobby had no right to control what health care services and products it purchases for its employees is the same as saying that government has no say in what medical procedures it will pay for under Medicare or the ACA. Those paying have the right to choose what they purchase.
This is a prime example of liberal lack of critical thinking. There is no up swell and call by men to force insurance companies to pay for their prophylactics and vasectomies. The reason is clear, men know their sex life is nobody else’s business, and men know if they ask somebody else to pay for it, that somebody else will have a say in it. As soon as liberals decided that paying for women’s birth control must be covered by insurance they invited those who pay for that insurance into their bedroom. Be it your employer or the government, those who pay for something have a say in what they pay for, including birth control. You want the government and your boss out of your bedroom, quit asking them to pay for your bedroom activities.
You have the right to do whatever you want with whomever is willing to join you in that activity in your own bedroom. You don’t have the right to force others to subsidize your sex life. If you are going to ask others to pay for your bedroom activities, then they have a say in those bedroom activities.
What the supreme court said in the Hobby Lobby case was, a woman’s boss has no business in her sex life, so she can’t make him pay for it if he doesn’t want to. The idiocy of the SCOTUS decision was they based it on freedom of religion, instead of basing the decision on the fact that people have not granted the government the power to dictate that women’s sex lives must be subsidized by others.
Monday, February 24, 2014
Media ignores Massive Civil Disobedience
by Tom Rhodes, 02/24/2014
It what may be the biggest act of civil disobedience since the Revolutionary War, somewhere around 100-300 thousand Connecticut Citizens are giving the middle finger to the State. Told they must register scary looking guns and standard sized magazines by Jan. 1, 2014 massive numbers of gun owners just ignored the law. Bigger and better than some protest, massive numbers of people simply said, “no.” In general the main stream media has ignored this.
The reason, it shows the government as weak and powerless against the people. Connecticut has a choice, it can arrest and imprison hundreds of thousands of citizens, or lose in court for unequal enforcement of the law if it tries to make “examples” of a few people. The idiot statist politicians assumed that because they would, and the people they know (fellow statists) would follow the law, that the good citizens of Connecticut wouldn’t dare ignore they dictates.
They were wrong. Seeing guns getting confiscated on a whim in New York and California. Not trusting the State to not change the rules, which history shows will happen. Looking at the now commonplace abuse by State law enforcement. The citizens of Connecticut justly told the state that it has no business tracking their guns any more than the state has a right to track our hands; our hammers; or our baseball bats. The right to life and the right to defend it are natural inalienable, owning the tools to do that are not any of the State’s business.
Connecticut cannot do anything about it either. The State doesn’t have the resources to hire the lawyers it would need to prosecute hundreds of thousands of people, much less jail them, especially if they simply refuse to pay the fines. Debtors prison is illegal. The ruling elite has ignored and flouted the Rule of Law, this has undermined the States authority to the point where the people can and will simply ignore it. Mike Lawlor, the state’s top official in criminal justice said, “A lot of it is just a question to ask, and I think the firearms unit would be looking at it. They could send them a letter.”
They Statists in government are now scared, they realize that they have a problem and don’t know what to do. Connecticut State Sen. Tony Guglielmo, R-Stafford, , the ranking GOP member of the legislature’s public safety committee, said, “I honestly thought from my own standpoint that the vast majority would register. If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don’t follow them, then you have a real problem.”
The reality is, sending a letter to gun owners suspected of owning guns that the law required them to register or dispose of their weapons, will be as effective as the law to register them has been. We the People have quite simply nullified the law. The Hartford Courant Editorial Board suggests that Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law. That is exactly why gun groups have opposed background checks, the fears that the statists and anti-gun crowd said were baseless are true.
The main stream press covered Connecticut’s December gun registration drive. Now that the results show that massive civil disobedience, they are silent. The press is silent because it demonstrates to all lovers of liberty that the state can be defeated, without a shot, without the press, just by ignoring their laws. That is scary for the statists and the press. The reason you won’t see trials of citizens with un-registered weapons is that juries can and will refuse to convict. The people know that gun owners aren’t felons for refusing to make it easier for the state to confiscate their weapons. All that has to happen is 1 juror refuse to convict. Look at Philly now, they don’t even bother to take to trial most pot possession charges, they know the defendant even if proven guilty will not be convicted.
Connecticut has around 3.5 million people, and the state estimates that there are around 350,000 assault weapons only about 12% registered. That means that the chances of any member of a jury being an owner of an assault weapon are good, and would probably refuse to convict. You can’t enslave a free man who loves liberty, all you can do is kill them. Lots of Americans hold in their hearts, the sentiment, “Give me Liberty or give me Death.” What the state didn’t consider was that people in mass would not obediently comply. Their Hubris will be their undoing. We the People will only suffer their oppression to a point. We’ve reached that point as the good citizens of Connecticut have demonstrated. A few people ignoring a law can be written off as criminal kooks but a hundred thousand plus giving the government the finger is a clear message to the State. A message they don’t like and don’t want to accept.
Connecticut now has a massive number of people with assault weapons who have clearly said, “We will not comply!” What’s it going to do about hundreds of thousands of armed citizens refusing to obey? The last time a government tried to send in troops to confiscate weapons from Yankees in that part of the country didn’t fare so well for the troops or government. It resulted in a long drawn out guerrilla war where the people refused to play by the rules, and ultimately ending in the people being self-governing and not under the thumb of the ruling elite. They then gave the ruling elite of the world the finger, daring to start their new constitution with the words “We the People.” Then going so far as to restrict the State from infringing on the mere people’s right to keep and bear arms. Statists have been working for over 200 years to try and put the people back in their rightful place. They forget one very important fact, massive amounts of people in the USA would rather Live Free, or Die
Live Free, or Die not as eloquent as Thomas Paine’s famous Give me Liberty or Give me Death, but a reality for more people than the state would believe. Obama now famously refused to negotiate on the budget and won. We the People, even in “liberal” Connecticut, are equally as intransient concerning our guns. Our answer to laws of registration and confiscation is simple, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ (Molôn Labé!)
It what may be the biggest act of civil disobedience since the Revolutionary War, somewhere around 100-300 thousand Connecticut Citizens are giving the middle finger to the State. Told they must register scary looking guns and standard sized magazines by Jan. 1, 2014 massive numbers of gun owners just ignored the law. Bigger and better than some protest, massive numbers of people simply said, “no.” In general the main stream media has ignored this.
The reason, it shows the government as weak and powerless against the people. Connecticut has a choice, it can arrest and imprison hundreds of thousands of citizens, or lose in court for unequal enforcement of the law if it tries to make “examples” of a few people. The idiot statist politicians assumed that because they would, and the people they know (fellow statists) would follow the law, that the good citizens of Connecticut wouldn’t dare ignore they dictates.
They were wrong. Seeing guns getting confiscated on a whim in New York and California. Not trusting the State to not change the rules, which history shows will happen. Looking at the now commonplace abuse by State law enforcement. The citizens of Connecticut justly told the state that it has no business tracking their guns any more than the state has a right to track our hands; our hammers; or our baseball bats. The right to life and the right to defend it are natural inalienable, owning the tools to do that are not any of the State’s business.
Connecticut cannot do anything about it either. The State doesn’t have the resources to hire the lawyers it would need to prosecute hundreds of thousands of people, much less jail them, especially if they simply refuse to pay the fines. Debtors prison is illegal. The ruling elite has ignored and flouted the Rule of Law, this has undermined the States authority to the point where the people can and will simply ignore it. Mike Lawlor, the state’s top official in criminal justice said, “A lot of it is just a question to ask, and I think the firearms unit would be looking at it. They could send them a letter.”
They Statists in government are now scared, they realize that they have a problem and don’t know what to do. Connecticut State Sen. Tony Guglielmo, R-Stafford, , the ranking GOP member of the legislature’s public safety committee, said, “I honestly thought from my own standpoint that the vast majority would register. If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don’t follow them, then you have a real problem.”
The reality is, sending a letter to gun owners suspected of owning guns that the law required them to register or dispose of their weapons, will be as effective as the law to register them has been. We the People have quite simply nullified the law. The Hartford Courant Editorial Board suggests that Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law. That is exactly why gun groups have opposed background checks, the fears that the statists and anti-gun crowd said were baseless are true.
The main stream press covered Connecticut’s December gun registration drive. Now that the results show that massive civil disobedience, they are silent. The press is silent because it demonstrates to all lovers of liberty that the state can be defeated, without a shot, without the press, just by ignoring their laws. That is scary for the statists and the press. The reason you won’t see trials of citizens with un-registered weapons is that juries can and will refuse to convict. The people know that gun owners aren’t felons for refusing to make it easier for the state to confiscate their weapons. All that has to happen is 1 juror refuse to convict. Look at Philly now, they don’t even bother to take to trial most pot possession charges, they know the defendant even if proven guilty will not be convicted.
Connecticut has around 3.5 million people, and the state estimates that there are around 350,000 assault weapons only about 12% registered. That means that the chances of any member of a jury being an owner of an assault weapon are good, and would probably refuse to convict. You can’t enslave a free man who loves liberty, all you can do is kill them. Lots of Americans hold in their hearts, the sentiment, “Give me Liberty or give me Death.” What the state didn’t consider was that people in mass would not obediently comply. Their Hubris will be their undoing. We the People will only suffer their oppression to a point. We’ve reached that point as the good citizens of Connecticut have demonstrated. A few people ignoring a law can be written off as criminal kooks but a hundred thousand plus giving the government the finger is a clear message to the State. A message they don’t like and don’t want to accept.
Connecticut now has a massive number of people with assault weapons who have clearly said, “We will not comply!” What’s it going to do about hundreds of thousands of armed citizens refusing to obey? The last time a government tried to send in troops to confiscate weapons from Yankees in that part of the country didn’t fare so well for the troops or government. It resulted in a long drawn out guerrilla war where the people refused to play by the rules, and ultimately ending in the people being self-governing and not under the thumb of the ruling elite. They then gave the ruling elite of the world the finger, daring to start their new constitution with the words “We the People.” Then going so far as to restrict the State from infringing on the mere people’s right to keep and bear arms. Statists have been working for over 200 years to try and put the people back in their rightful place. They forget one very important fact, massive amounts of people in the USA would rather Live Free, or Die
Live Free, or Die not as eloquent as Thomas Paine’s famous Give me Liberty or Give me Death, but a reality for more people than the state would believe. Obama now famously refused to negotiate on the budget and won. We the People, even in “liberal” Connecticut, are equally as intransient concerning our guns. Our answer to laws of registration and confiscation is simple, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ (Molôn Labé!)
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Public Schools are Cruel and Unusual.
By Tom Rhodes, 9/29/2013
Let’s start with the first example, Schools claim students have no civil rights and that even their actions on private property, not during school hours, are under the schools jurisdiction. Fox News Reports the following: .
Government schools say your child can be expelled for playing with toy guns in their own yard. “The school’s so-called “zero-tolerance” policy on guns extends to private property, according to the report.”
One of the suspended (soon to be expelled) boys’ mother said, “My son is my private property. He does not become the school’s property until he goes to the bus stop, gets on the bus, and goes to school,”
Don’t confuse the fact that the boys, are not totally innocent, they are guilty of acting like boys. Some say they may have shot at some kids who weren’t part of their play. That’s something that should be punished, but not without due process, or by the school which clearly has no jurisdiction on the boy’s parents private property.
Don’t thik this is a isolated incident, Public schools now have a pattern of trying to dismiss students civil rights, especially recognition of the second amendment. Don’t take my word for it Google these absurd actions over the past couple years.
Bureaucrats suspended a little boy for taking bites out of a pop tart in such a way that it was shaped like a gun.
Bureaucrats suspended a 7-year boy for pretending to throw a non-existent grenade on the playground.
Bureaucrats suspended a 6-year old boy in Maryland for making a gun shape with his finger.
Bureaucrats busted a 5-year old girl in Pennsylvania for having a pink plastic gun that shoots bubbles.
A teacher in Rhode Island caught an 8-year old boy with some plastic toy army men.
Bureaucrats evacuated a school because an 11-year old boy made a motion detector for his science experiment.
Bureaucrats in Florida kicked an 8-year old boy out of school for a year because he had a plastic gun in his backpack.
In Virginia, not only did bureaucrats suspend a 10-year old boy for a toy gun, called the cops and had the kid arrested.
A third-grader got in trouble for having toy army men on his birthday cupcakes.
Two second-graders got suspended for holding pencils like they were guns.
Bureaucrats suspended a kindergartener for having a lego-sized toy gun.
Bureaucrats wanted a deaf child to change his sign-language name because it required him to shape his fingers in a way that resembled a gun.
Clearly the schools are making a concerted effort to indoctrinate through excessive punishment the children of America to undermine our Second Amendment. Many of these punishments are clearly disproportionate, to the point of being cruel and unusual.
Let’s start with the first example, Schools claim students have no civil rights and that even their actions on private property, not during school hours, are under the schools jurisdiction. Fox News Reports the following: .
Natural Born Killers
Two seventh-grade students in Virginia Beach, Va., were handed long-term suspensions Tuesday that will last until the end of the school year for playing with an airsoft gun in one of their front yards while waiting for the school bus. WAVY-TV reports that 13-year-old Khalid Caraballo and Aidan Clark will face an additional hearing in January to determine if they will be expelled for “possession, handling and use of a firearm” because the guns were fired at two others playing in Caraballo’s yard. …Khalid claims he never took the toy gun to the designated bus stop or Larkspur Middle School, according to the report. Two other students who fired guns were also suspended.
Government schools say your child can be expelled for playing with toy guns in their own yard. “The school’s so-called “zero-tolerance” policy on guns extends to private property, according to the report.”
One of the suspended (soon to be expelled) boys’ mother said, “My son is my private property. He does not become the school’s property until he goes to the bus stop, gets on the bus, and goes to school,”
Don’t confuse the fact that the boys, are not totally innocent, they are guilty of acting like boys. Some say they may have shot at some kids who weren’t part of their play. That’s something that should be punished, but not without due process, or by the school which clearly has no jurisdiction on the boy’s parents private property.
Don’t thik this is a isolated incident, Public schools now have a pattern of trying to dismiss students civil rights, especially recognition of the second amendment. Don’t take my word for it Google these absurd actions over the past couple years.
Clearly the schools are making a concerted effort to indoctrinate through excessive punishment the children of America to undermine our Second Amendment. Many of these punishments are clearly disproportionate, to the point of being cruel and unusual.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Clarity on Citizens Rights
By Tom Rhodes, 5/3/2012
"It is unclear how disarming law abiding citizens would better protect them from the dangers and threats posed by those who would flout the law." ~ Gov. Rick Scott, 2012
That was the response to the Mayor of Tampa’s request to have the Florida Governor to take away the right of the people to keep and bear arms in Tampa during the RNC convention this August. When faced with the actual evidence the fears expressed by Tampa Mayor and city council are completely irrational. Furthermore it is incumbent upon those who would restrict a fundamental right, ostensibly to make us all safer, to actually provide evidence that such restrictions of a constitutional right will in fact produce the increased safety they use to rationalize limiting liberty. There is no evidence that disarming licensed concealed weapons carriers will make anybody except criminals safer, however there is evidence to conclude that the increase in private gun ownership and number of armed citizens has resulted in increased safety.
Looking at the numbers since both the right to carry concealed arms in Florida was protected by law, and since the passing of the Stand Your Ground law in 2005, regardless of what anti-gun people want to say or claim, Florida is safer not more dangerous. Opponents can note that the number of justifiable homicides in Florida (excluding police shootings) has just about tripled since the law was passed. The average number of justifiable homicides between 2000 and 2004 was 12 while the average between 2006 and 2010 has increased to 35. Considering the size of our population, and the fact that now 6.5% of the Florida residents are licensed to carry concealed weapons the number is very low. Looking at that increase in justifiable homicides would be unjust and unfair and untrue without also noting that Florida's overall violent crime rate fell by 23% in the five years since the Stand Your Ground law was passed.
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence claims that Florida’ liberal concealed carry law is responsible for "year after year of carnage," that is quite simply a lie. If you look at the data you would find that since 1987, when the nondiscretionary carry license law was passed, Florida’s overall violent crime rate has been cut just about in half. In fact the evidence is clear; the crime rate of those people whom Florida has issued a license to carry a concealed weapon is far less than that of the general public and the violent crime rate related to firearms of those people is so minuscule it is virtually nonexistent.
Governor Scott’s response to the Tampa Mayor was not just political, it was logical. His response provided clarity based on facts and evidence; disarming law abiding citizens will not protect them from the dangers and threats posed by those who would flout the law.
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” ~ John Adams, 1770
"It is unclear how disarming law abiding citizens would better protect them from the dangers and threats posed by those who would flout the law." ~ Gov. Rick Scott, 2012
That was the response to the Mayor of Tampa’s request to have the Florida Governor to take away the right of the people to keep and bear arms in Tampa during the RNC convention this August. When faced with the actual evidence the fears expressed by Tampa Mayor and city council are completely irrational. Furthermore it is incumbent upon those who would restrict a fundamental right, ostensibly to make us all safer, to actually provide evidence that such restrictions of a constitutional right will in fact produce the increased safety they use to rationalize limiting liberty. There is no evidence that disarming licensed concealed weapons carriers will make anybody except criminals safer, however there is evidence to conclude that the increase in private gun ownership and number of armed citizens has resulted in increased safety.
Looking at the numbers since both the right to carry concealed arms in Florida was protected by law, and since the passing of the Stand Your Ground law in 2005, regardless of what anti-gun people want to say or claim, Florida is safer not more dangerous. Opponents can note that the number of justifiable homicides in Florida (excluding police shootings) has just about tripled since the law was passed. The average number of justifiable homicides between 2000 and 2004 was 12 while the average between 2006 and 2010 has increased to 35. Considering the size of our population, and the fact that now 6.5% of the Florida residents are licensed to carry concealed weapons the number is very low. Looking at that increase in justifiable homicides would be unjust and unfair and untrue without also noting that Florida's overall violent crime rate fell by 23% in the five years since the Stand Your Ground law was passed.
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence claims that Florida’ liberal concealed carry law is responsible for "year after year of carnage," that is quite simply a lie. If you look at the data you would find that since 1987, when the nondiscretionary carry license law was passed, Florida’s overall violent crime rate has been cut just about in half. In fact the evidence is clear; the crime rate of those people whom Florida has issued a license to carry a concealed weapon is far less than that of the general public and the violent crime rate related to firearms of those people is so minuscule it is virtually nonexistent.
Governor Scott’s response to the Tampa Mayor was not just political, it was logical. His response provided clarity based on facts and evidence; disarming law abiding citizens will not protect them from the dangers and threats posed by those who would flout the law.
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” ~ John Adams, 1770
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Should You Need a Photo ID to Exercise a Right?
by Tom Rhodes, 3/20/2001
The 21st Amendment recognizes drinking intoxicating liquors as a right of the people, repealing the 18th amendment which had prohibited intoxicating liquors. Current laws are such that to purchase intoxicating liquors like beer, wine, and other fine spirits requires a photo ID. This then begs the question:
Is requiring photo ID's to purchase beer a racist assault to keep minorities from their constitutional right to purchase and drink alcohol?
If requiring a photo ID to exercise this clearly constitutional right is not racist than voter ID cannot be racist. Although I think voter ID as a method of preventing dead people from voting, as the Attorney General said over 900 did in South Carolina, for other reasons I kind of hope that the left wins this one. If they do then requirements to produce ID's to purchase beer, wine, etc will have to be repealed on the same grounds. Once those are repealed then requiring ID's to purchase Sudafed should be repealed for the same reason.
More importantly the right to keep and bear arms includes purchasing arms. The Supreme Court has ruled that this is an individual right. There are clearly racist roots in most gun control laws, aimed at not allowing blacks to own guns. Even laws that attempt to outlaw "Saturday Night Specials" (inexpensive guns) making them unaffordable to disenfranchised minorities was directly attributed to racist rationale. Using the logic of liberals that it is racist to require a government issued ID to vote, we can only conclude that it is racist to require a government issued ID to purchase a gun. If the left wins this, then it will set up a whole new set of court precedents that can be used to eliminate government tracking and the requirement to show ID when purchasing a firearm. All you'll need to do is register to purchase firearms the same way as you register to vote, once on the register to purchase firearms you will only need to claim to be the purchaser no need to produce an ID. Registration as a reasonable restriction on the constitutional right should be no different to vote, purchase firearms or alcohol, and should have the same standards. It will eliminate the need for a "waiting period" as you are already registered. Since the government cannot and does not track your vote, it has no need and should not be able to track or know your firearms purchases. A seller need only confirm that who you claim to be is registered to purchase arms, not verify that you are who you claim to be, nor record what you purchased, etc.
This whole movement to outlaw and claim as racist the requirement to provide an ID to exercise a constitutional right may be a good thing. If we believe in the rule of law, and that it is unconstitutional and racist to require a government ID to exercise constitutionally protected rights then it opens a whole gambit of methods to eliminate an intrusive government. Start with the Real ID Act, based on this logic this is clearly an unconstitutional and racist Law and must be repealed. Since you have a constitutional right to travel, the entire ID requirement to fly, board a train or bus, etc. must be considered racist and eliminated. Since you have a constitutional right to drink alcoholic beverages, the laws requiring and ID to purchase them must be considered racist and eliminated. Since you have a constitutional right to purchase firearms, the laws requiring an ID to purchase them must be considered racist and eliminated. Obviously all of the Border Patrol Checkpoints that are not actually on the border are clearly unconstitutional and racist as nobody should be required to show a photo ID to travel.
I believe my position has changed, I agree with liberals and the NAACP, government ID's to exercise constitutional rights are racist and ALL laws, rules, regulations, and mandates by the federal government that require a person to produce a government ID should be repealed. Of course if the left supports requirements to have government ID's to exercise other constitutionally protected rights like traveling or purchasing booze and guns, then maybe it's fair to say that they don't oppose requiring a photo ID to vote on constitutional/racist grounds but instead want to preserve the current system which, as recent James O'Keefe's Project Veritas videos have demonstrated, makes it absurdly easy to register fraudulently or vote as a dead person.
To any of you who oppose voter ID laws, are you consistent and do you oppose requiring voter ID to exercise other constitutionally protected rights for the same reasons, or do you just want to keep it so that voter fraud is easy? If you oppose having to produce a photo ID to vote, and do not oppose having to produce a photo ID to buy a beer, then you need to think about your real motives.
The 21st Amendment recognizes drinking intoxicating liquors as a right of the people, repealing the 18th amendment which had prohibited intoxicating liquors. Current laws are such that to purchase intoxicating liquors like beer, wine, and other fine spirits requires a photo ID. This then begs the question:
Is requiring photo ID's to purchase beer a racist assault to keep minorities from their constitutional right to purchase and drink alcohol?
If requiring a photo ID to exercise this clearly constitutional right is not racist than voter ID cannot be racist. Although I think voter ID as a method of preventing dead people from voting, as the Attorney General said over 900 did in South Carolina, for other reasons I kind of hope that the left wins this one. If they do then requirements to produce ID's to purchase beer, wine, etc will have to be repealed on the same grounds. Once those are repealed then requiring ID's to purchase Sudafed should be repealed for the same reason.
More importantly the right to keep and bear arms includes purchasing arms. The Supreme Court has ruled that this is an individual right. There are clearly racist roots in most gun control laws, aimed at not allowing blacks to own guns. Even laws that attempt to outlaw "Saturday Night Specials" (inexpensive guns) making them unaffordable to disenfranchised minorities was directly attributed to racist rationale. Using the logic of liberals that it is racist to require a government issued ID to vote, we can only conclude that it is racist to require a government issued ID to purchase a gun. If the left wins this, then it will set up a whole new set of court precedents that can be used to eliminate government tracking and the requirement to show ID when purchasing a firearm. All you'll need to do is register to purchase firearms the same way as you register to vote, once on the register to purchase firearms you will only need to claim to be the purchaser no need to produce an ID. Registration as a reasonable restriction on the constitutional right should be no different to vote, purchase firearms or alcohol, and should have the same standards. It will eliminate the need for a "waiting period" as you are already registered. Since the government cannot and does not track your vote, it has no need and should not be able to track or know your firearms purchases. A seller need only confirm that who you claim to be is registered to purchase arms, not verify that you are who you claim to be, nor record what you purchased, etc.
This whole movement to outlaw and claim as racist the requirement to provide an ID to exercise a constitutional right may be a good thing. If we believe in the rule of law, and that it is unconstitutional and racist to require a government ID to exercise constitutionally protected rights then it opens a whole gambit of methods to eliminate an intrusive government. Start with the Real ID Act, based on this logic this is clearly an unconstitutional and racist Law and must be repealed. Since you have a constitutional right to travel, the entire ID requirement to fly, board a train or bus, etc. must be considered racist and eliminated. Since you have a constitutional right to drink alcoholic beverages, the laws requiring and ID to purchase them must be considered racist and eliminated. Since you have a constitutional right to purchase firearms, the laws requiring an ID to purchase them must be considered racist and eliminated. Obviously all of the Border Patrol Checkpoints that are not actually on the border are clearly unconstitutional and racist as nobody should be required to show a photo ID to travel.
I believe my position has changed, I agree with liberals and the NAACP, government ID's to exercise constitutional rights are racist and ALL laws, rules, regulations, and mandates by the federal government that require a person to produce a government ID should be repealed. Of course if the left supports requirements to have government ID's to exercise other constitutionally protected rights like traveling or purchasing booze and guns, then maybe it's fair to say that they don't oppose requiring a photo ID to vote on constitutional/racist grounds but instead want to preserve the current system which, as recent James O'Keefe's Project Veritas videos have demonstrated, makes it absurdly easy to register fraudulently or vote as a dead person.
To any of you who oppose voter ID laws, are you consistent and do you oppose requiring voter ID to exercise other constitutionally protected rights for the same reasons, or do you just want to keep it so that voter fraud is easy? If you oppose having to produce a photo ID to vote, and do not oppose having to produce a photo ID to buy a beer, then you need to think about your real motives.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Progressives are Children in an Adult World
By Tom Rhodes, 2/28/2012
Leftists, Progressives, Liberals, or whatever those pseudo-intellectual children call themselves today, love to think of themselves as intellectual and nuanced. The sad truth is leftist thinking is incredibly unsophisticated, simple, and childlike. Leftist thinking is simply a toddler's emotions applied to grown-up issues. Virtually every issue boils down to an emotional appeal of either being nice or mean, and wanting everything to be OK. This makes left leaning individuals intellectually unable to deal with multifarious subjects.
The reality is that left thinking people are worse than children. How can an adult not understand what children can clearly grasp? Leftist seem incapable of comprehending what children easily grasp.
Even a 5 year old knows that life isn't fair. They even understand that what is fair depends on who is in charge and who is getting mistreated. It's not fair that one kid gets picked last when choosing teams to play some sport every time. Some people are more athletic than others, some are smarter than others, not everybody is physically, intellectually, and emotionally identical. Because we are all different we all have different skills and faults. This is a simple fact that will result in different outcomes. Every child gets this, not everybody will make the team.
Life being fair is a utopian fairytale that leftists continually try to insist is possible. Left thinking people, ignore the difference in the habits and morals and actions of individuals which result in different outcomes for all individuals. Their childish utopian beliefs that in a "fair" society, nobody would suffer, does not consider the actions of individuals. They ignore the character differences between people, and try to falsely claim that all societies deserve respect and all cultures are equally valued.
This is not based on any adult analysis using reason and logic. The objective truth is that the habits, culture, and actions of free people, and without a national shared set of cultural values and recognition that some values produce superior results is a childlike want of some condition that has never existed.
The habits of a free people -- for stability, thrift, obedience to law, respect for others' rights, personal responsibility, etc. - are the seminal essentials in culture's character. Not having the shared values of freedom you won't have much that that resembles freedom. Without valuing individual liberty, a society will not have much of anything else, look at Cuba, Zimbabwe and the other nations that have substituted statist control for individual freedom. You will certainly not have an economy that produces jobs and prosperity on any long-term.
Leftists, Progressives, Liberals, or whatever those intellectual midgets call themselves today, don't understand that you can't have everything you want. Most children learn this at a very early age. Left thinking people seem to think that if something is a good idea, then it should be instituted, regardless of what it costs, regardless of whether it's worth the money. They start with some utopian idea, and believe because they want the world to be some way that anybody who opposes that idea is mean, or greedy, or evil, or hateful, etc.
Leftists want nobody to suffer, and everybody to have the best health services and product available; No consideration as to what it costs, no consideration as to where to fund their wants. To achieve this goal they are more than willing to trounce the basic rights of everybody. Dictate what you must purchase, and feel that they should be allowed to redistribute the property of others as they see fit. Taking money (which is accumulated property) from some people and giving it to others for something the left wants, is based on some utopian idea that people should all share their private property equally, and that nobody will change their behavior if what they managed to acquire is re-distributed to those who don't share the same habits, skills, ability, etc. People who think like that have a total disregard for the private property of others. Much the same as a child has no respect for and will take the toys of others just because the child wants them. This is moral bankruptcy. Moral relativism and disrespect for any accountability to any moral standard is a common trait we see in children whose parents don't attempt to instill in them clear moral objectives. Most adults call these children spoiled brats, these children take no responsibility for their own actions, are self-centered, selfish, and take from others with no regard.
Left thinking generally undercuts morality, specifically Christianity every chance it gets, this type of thinking sneers at goodness and virtue. People with leftist thinking actually think that it is bad to enforce or hold people to moral standards. They think that judging people for bad behavior is mean or hateful. They think that being nice, tolerant, non-judgmental, and permissive is a replacement for traditional virtue, decency, and moral character. They don't believe in any objective moral code, and since to be a genuinely good person requires a moral code they hate and ridicule genuinely good people. Look at how the liberal press treated Tim Tebow. Anybody who draws a clear line between right and wrong, and has the audacity and courage to stand up for what's right, is what we would traditionally call a hero. Left thinking people cannot tolerate good people to be examples, or be publicly accepted and praised. This is because good people with moral character demonstrate how unfair, unprincipled, and ugly the character and actions are of the parasites who leech off the efforts of others. Left thinking people tend to hold good and moral people in absolute and utter contempt.
Leftist thinking people, like children, don't want anybody to be a loser and always want to be a winner. It is childlike want and desire to be liked and loved that leads to wanting to give everybody a ribbon or trophy just for competing. They think nobody should feel bad, and everybody ought to be recognized as an achieving person, regardless of whether they actually perform well, much less actually win. Look at the ending of giving valedictorian honors to the person who earned the highest grades over their entire high school career, because this makes some kids or their parents feel bad large numbers of school districts no-longer award valedictorian. This child like thinking has lead to some twisted belief that competition is bad. This is thinking that regardless of effort, ability, character, actions, and even some luck, all people should end up with the same results. Even the title of the clearly leftist and childish program to ensure that everybody has the same results, "No Child Left Behind," indicates a fundamental childish thinking. The actual result of "No Child Left Behind" is that "No Child Gets Ahead." The only way to ensure that no child get's left behind is to lower the standard so that regardless of ability and effort no child can fail. The resources and money spent assuring that every child meet some minimum standard routinely take away the resources used to offer more challenging and rigorous opportunities for the most advanced, smartest, hardest working students.
We all compete for everything. From getting a mate, to finding a job -- life is completion. P.J. O'Rourke summed it up saying, "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." Everyone cannot be at the same level. Only a very few people have the athletic ability perform at the professional level. Michal Jordon was paid vast sums of money because on an even playing field, with fair rules, equally enforced, he consistently won and outperformed the competition. Some people are prettier, more athletic, smarter, grew up in a loving home, etc. Get over it, life isn't fair.
It is only child like utopian thinking that wants something different from reality and would think that it's fair and just to take the rewards of using the gifts, talents, abilities, and character of winners and give those rewards to losers. Left thinking people cannot accept that some people won't win life's lottery, and further doesn't accept that people should suffer the consequences of poor decisions. They would prefer that everybody be equally poor than anybody have more than another. They clearly believe the failed Marxist idea that resources should be created by each according to their ability and distributed to each according to their needs. They may voice other that they don't think that, but the actions of leftist thinkers clearly indicate that that is what they believe. As adults they should realize that the reality of implementing their childlike desires has historically resulted in privation and tyranny. Rational adults push for equality of opportunity, rule of law, equality under the law, and let everyone rise to his own level, while childish thinkers try to tear people down and turn everyone into losers to insure equality of results.
The child like thinking of the left seems to believe that by virtue of being born, other people owe you a living. Sorry, this is a grown up world, nobody owes you diddly squat. Nobody should have their access to an education denied, in fact with the internet, anybody can learn just about anything they want to learn, it's up to them to put in the time and effort, but neither should they force others to pay for it. Nobody should be denied the ability to purchase whatever medical care they want, but that does not imply a right to force others to pay for it. Nobody should be denied a retirement without financial worries, but that doesn't mean that if you don't save, invest, and take actions to supply yourself with that kind of retirement others should have to pick up your bills in old age.
What you are owed for being born is "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." This means that you as an adult are responsible for maintaining yourself. As an adult you are responsible for the consequences of your actions, even to the point of being responsible to raise your own kids (you have kids because of actions you choose to take). When you become an Adult, most parents expect you to move out and take care of yourself. You should not expect that government to become your parent when you get kicked out of the house. This is not to say that Americans are not generous, and don't want to and expect to help those who have temporarily fallen on hard times. But the people of this country have no obligation to provide generations of others with food, shelter, entertainment, and a standard of living most of the world envies. The wholesale abuse of our welfare system is indicative of children who think that they should be taken care of for life, and if their mommy and daddy won't or can't than it's the government's job.
I'm sorry if you don't like hearing it, but that is childish thinking. Adults are responsible for taking care of themselves. If you want to be successful and not live in poverty, then grow up and be an adult. This means that you are expected to take on the character and actions of an adult. Emulate and do what adults who are successful do, this includes: finishing school and putting your best effort into your education; living below your means and saving some money; getting married before you have kids; respecting and honoring the rights, including property rights, of others; taking ownership and responsibility for your actions, meaning that you are willing to accept the consequences of your decisions and quit blaming others for your poor life choices; and finally you should also include going to a church of some kind and being active in your community. This will provide you with both a local and private community based support system if you fall on hard times, and although there are exceptions, going to church is a common trait among the most successful people regardless of their political ideology.
If you choose not to take on the character and do what successful adults do, then at least have the decency not to be a cry-baby and expect those of us who choose to grow up and be adults to take your childish whining seriously. That's what most progressive, socialists, leftist, liberals ideas are; the childish whining of children who don't want to grow up and live in an adult world.
Leftists, Progressives, Liberals, or whatever those pseudo-intellectual children call themselves today, love to think of themselves as intellectual and nuanced. The sad truth is leftist thinking is incredibly unsophisticated, simple, and childlike. Leftist thinking is simply a toddler's emotions applied to grown-up issues. Virtually every issue boils down to an emotional appeal of either being nice or mean, and wanting everything to be OK. This makes left leaning individuals intellectually unable to deal with multifarious subjects.
The reality is that left thinking people are worse than children. How can an adult not understand what children can clearly grasp? Leftist seem incapable of comprehending what children easily grasp.
Even a 5 year old knows that life isn't fair. They even understand that what is fair depends on who is in charge and who is getting mistreated. It's not fair that one kid gets picked last when choosing teams to play some sport every time. Some people are more athletic than others, some are smarter than others, not everybody is physically, intellectually, and emotionally identical. Because we are all different we all have different skills and faults. This is a simple fact that will result in different outcomes. Every child gets this, not everybody will make the team.
Life being fair is a utopian fairytale that leftists continually try to insist is possible. Left thinking people, ignore the difference in the habits and morals and actions of individuals which result in different outcomes for all individuals. Their childish utopian beliefs that in a "fair" society, nobody would suffer, does not consider the actions of individuals. They ignore the character differences between people, and try to falsely claim that all societies deserve respect and all cultures are equally valued.
This is not based on any adult analysis using reason and logic. The objective truth is that the habits, culture, and actions of free people, and without a national shared set of cultural values and recognition that some values produce superior results is a childlike want of some condition that has never existed.
The habits of a free people -- for stability, thrift, obedience to law, respect for others' rights, personal responsibility, etc. - are the seminal essentials in culture's character. Not having the shared values of freedom you won't have much that that resembles freedom. Without valuing individual liberty, a society will not have much of anything else, look at Cuba, Zimbabwe and the other nations that have substituted statist control for individual freedom. You will certainly not have an economy that produces jobs and prosperity on any long-term.
Leftists, Progressives, Liberals, or whatever those intellectual midgets call themselves today, don't understand that you can't have everything you want. Most children learn this at a very early age. Left thinking people seem to think that if something is a good idea, then it should be instituted, regardless of what it costs, regardless of whether it's worth the money. They start with some utopian idea, and believe because they want the world to be some way that anybody who opposes that idea is mean, or greedy, or evil, or hateful, etc.
Leftists want nobody to suffer, and everybody to have the best health services and product available; No consideration as to what it costs, no consideration as to where to fund their wants. To achieve this goal they are more than willing to trounce the basic rights of everybody. Dictate what you must purchase, and feel that they should be allowed to redistribute the property of others as they see fit. Taking money (which is accumulated property) from some people and giving it to others for something the left wants, is based on some utopian idea that people should all share their private property equally, and that nobody will change their behavior if what they managed to acquire is re-distributed to those who don't share the same habits, skills, ability, etc. People who think like that have a total disregard for the private property of others. Much the same as a child has no respect for and will take the toys of others just because the child wants them. This is moral bankruptcy. Moral relativism and disrespect for any accountability to any moral standard is a common trait we see in children whose parents don't attempt to instill in them clear moral objectives. Most adults call these children spoiled brats, these children take no responsibility for their own actions, are self-centered, selfish, and take from others with no regard.
Left thinking generally undercuts morality, specifically Christianity every chance it gets, this type of thinking sneers at goodness and virtue. People with leftist thinking actually think that it is bad to enforce or hold people to moral standards. They think that judging people for bad behavior is mean or hateful. They think that being nice, tolerant, non-judgmental, and permissive is a replacement for traditional virtue, decency, and moral character. They don't believe in any objective moral code, and since to be a genuinely good person requires a moral code they hate and ridicule genuinely good people. Look at how the liberal press treated Tim Tebow. Anybody who draws a clear line between right and wrong, and has the audacity and courage to stand up for what's right, is what we would traditionally call a hero. Left thinking people cannot tolerate good people to be examples, or be publicly accepted and praised. This is because good people with moral character demonstrate how unfair, unprincipled, and ugly the character and actions are of the parasites who leech off the efforts of others. Left thinking people tend to hold good and moral people in absolute and utter contempt.
Leftist thinking people, like children, don't want anybody to be a loser and always want to be a winner. It is childlike want and desire to be liked and loved that leads to wanting to give everybody a ribbon or trophy just for competing. They think nobody should feel bad, and everybody ought to be recognized as an achieving person, regardless of whether they actually perform well, much less actually win. Look at the ending of giving valedictorian honors to the person who earned the highest grades over their entire high school career, because this makes some kids or their parents feel bad large numbers of school districts no-longer award valedictorian. This child like thinking has lead to some twisted belief that competition is bad. This is thinking that regardless of effort, ability, character, actions, and even some luck, all people should end up with the same results. Even the title of the clearly leftist and childish program to ensure that everybody has the same results, "No Child Left Behind," indicates a fundamental childish thinking. The actual result of "No Child Left Behind" is that "No Child Gets Ahead." The only way to ensure that no child get's left behind is to lower the standard so that regardless of ability and effort no child can fail. The resources and money spent assuring that every child meet some minimum standard routinely take away the resources used to offer more challenging and rigorous opportunities for the most advanced, smartest, hardest working students.
We all compete for everything. From getting a mate, to finding a job -- life is completion. P.J. O'Rourke summed it up saying, "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." Everyone cannot be at the same level. Only a very few people have the athletic ability perform at the professional level. Michal Jordon was paid vast sums of money because on an even playing field, with fair rules, equally enforced, he consistently won and outperformed the competition. Some people are prettier, more athletic, smarter, grew up in a loving home, etc. Get over it, life isn't fair.
It is only child like utopian thinking that wants something different from reality and would think that it's fair and just to take the rewards of using the gifts, talents, abilities, and character of winners and give those rewards to losers. Left thinking people cannot accept that some people won't win life's lottery, and further doesn't accept that people should suffer the consequences of poor decisions. They would prefer that everybody be equally poor than anybody have more than another. They clearly believe the failed Marxist idea that resources should be created by each according to their ability and distributed to each according to their needs. They may voice other that they don't think that, but the actions of leftist thinkers clearly indicate that that is what they believe. As adults they should realize that the reality of implementing their childlike desires has historically resulted in privation and tyranny. Rational adults push for equality of opportunity, rule of law, equality under the law, and let everyone rise to his own level, while childish thinkers try to tear people down and turn everyone into losers to insure equality of results.
The child like thinking of the left seems to believe that by virtue of being born, other people owe you a living. Sorry, this is a grown up world, nobody owes you diddly squat. Nobody should have their access to an education denied, in fact with the internet, anybody can learn just about anything they want to learn, it's up to them to put in the time and effort, but neither should they force others to pay for it. Nobody should be denied the ability to purchase whatever medical care they want, but that does not imply a right to force others to pay for it. Nobody should be denied a retirement without financial worries, but that doesn't mean that if you don't save, invest, and take actions to supply yourself with that kind of retirement others should have to pick up your bills in old age.
What you are owed for being born is "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." This means that you as an adult are responsible for maintaining yourself. As an adult you are responsible for the consequences of your actions, even to the point of being responsible to raise your own kids (you have kids because of actions you choose to take). When you become an Adult, most parents expect you to move out and take care of yourself. You should not expect that government to become your parent when you get kicked out of the house. This is not to say that Americans are not generous, and don't want to and expect to help those who have temporarily fallen on hard times. But the people of this country have no obligation to provide generations of others with food, shelter, entertainment, and a standard of living most of the world envies. The wholesale abuse of our welfare system is indicative of children who think that they should be taken care of for life, and if their mommy and daddy won't or can't than it's the government's job.
I'm sorry if you don't like hearing it, but that is childish thinking. Adults are responsible for taking care of themselves. If you want to be successful and not live in poverty, then grow up and be an adult. This means that you are expected to take on the character and actions of an adult. Emulate and do what adults who are successful do, this includes: finishing school and putting your best effort into your education; living below your means and saving some money; getting married before you have kids; respecting and honoring the rights, including property rights, of others; taking ownership and responsibility for your actions, meaning that you are willing to accept the consequences of your decisions and quit blaming others for your poor life choices; and finally you should also include going to a church of some kind and being active in your community. This will provide you with both a local and private community based support system if you fall on hard times, and although there are exceptions, going to church is a common trait among the most successful people regardless of their political ideology.
If you choose not to take on the character and do what successful adults do, then at least have the decency not to be a cry-baby and expect those of us who choose to grow up and be adults to take your childish whining seriously. That's what most progressive, socialists, leftist, liberals ideas are; the childish whining of children who don't want to grow up and live in an adult world.
Monday, January 23, 2012
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Statist Rags
By Tom Rhodes 10/11/2011
The St. Pete Times Tuesday October 11, 2011 editorial was based on a recent Philadelphia Inquirer editorial, even though the times treats it as a news article. The basis is: if the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania won't issue a person a carry concealed weapons (CCW) permit then Florida shouldn't be allowed to issue such a permit to the same person. Florida issues concealed weapons permits to all applicants who hold a valid driver’s license in their state of residency, are mentally sound, have never been convicted of a felony, and have had firearms training. Philly won’t issue CCW’s to anybody they don’t like.
Because the government in Philadelphia either cannot or will not convict a person of some crimes, but that person is “known” to be a criminal, they think that is justifiable reason to restrict a person’s rights. The Times laments that the State of Florida may grant a CCW permit to a person whom the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has denied. They seem to think the Florida standard of guilty until PROVEN innocent is extreme. They want to Florida to accept Pennsylvania’s standard of guilt by association. The Times tries to make this out to be a State’s Rights argument. They blame the agreement Florida has with Pennsylvania honoring the CCW permits issued from each other.
It is not a State’s Rights issue; Pennsylvania is free to change its laws, and/or modify its agreement to only honor Florida CCW permits from Florida residents or not honor Florida CCW permits at all. The Times fails to even recognize that people are Innocent until Proven Guilty, and accepts the standards of guilt by association, and guilty until proven innocent. Not one time to they think about the rights of individuals, nor consider that a person should be treated as innocent until proven guilty. Yes, by the standard of treating people innocent until PROVEN guilty, some guilty people will get through the cracks, but as a society we long ago determined that it is better for some guilty people to go free, than infringe upon the basic rights of all people.
So what is the point in noting that the Philadelphia Inquirer and St. Petersburg Times have a bias against citizens having guns? Both of these newspapers have proven and long standing “liberal” bias, and have consistently held anti-gun positions. The point is not to further expose known truths about them, but to note that they are in fact not liberal newspapers. A liberal, by definition, is someone who is favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties. The articles from both papers lament the fact that Florida honors and protects civil rights over the interest of the State. They conclude that the State should have the authority to restrict an individual’s civil liberties without due process or having to actually prove a person is guilty of something. They want to allow the State to instill a penalty for merely being suspect of committing a crime. They in fact are not “liberal” newspapers but “statist” rags. They actively promote principles and policies of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty. This is the very definition of Statism.
My open question to the Philadelphia Inquirer is why don’t you condemn the City of Philadelphia and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for restricting fundamental rights of its citizens without due process?
My open question to the St. Petersburg Times is why do you consider Florida’s belief and protection of the concept that all individuals are “Innocent Until Proven Guilty” and as such should be treated as innocent unless actually convicted of a crime do you find radical or extreme?
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Our inviolable right to self-defense
by Phil Elmore
March 10, 2011 © 2011
The state in which I live, New York, is contemplating a law that would register and tax every firearm in the state. Already ruling the state most hostile to gun owners, New York's Democrats wish to enact a precursor to confiscation that is not just transparent in its intensions, but onerous in its financial burdens. What is often lost in debates over laws of this type is what they truly say to the citizens they affect. A law that restricts the technology of self-defense is a law that criminalizes self-defense itself. It is a law that violates your civil rights. It is a direct affront to you as a human being.
The Founding Fathers of the United States indicated their acceptance of, and based the United States Constitution on, the concept of natural rights. For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter if you believe in God or not. Most deists and theists believe rights are God-granted, while others believe natural rights come from nature. Natural rights exist regardless.
Because you are a discrete biological entity, you are an individual. Every group of people can be broken into individuals. No group of people can exist as a single living organism because they simply aren't one, any more than a parking lot full of cars can be a single automobile.
Because no human can be another human, no one can live another's life. By virtue of your nature as an individual, you are born with the inalienable property right to yourself as a person. This means that no human being has a claim on your time or your effort without your consent. Think about it. If you do not own you, who does? If you are anything but your own property, you belong to someone else, which makes you that someone's slave. Are you a slave?
Your property right to your person extends to a general right to possess legally acquired property, for no human can exist without property of some kind. This is an axiom of existence. You cannot exist in space unconnected to all other existents, the sole resident of an empty bubble of space-time. This does not mean you have an automatic claim to someone else's property by virtue of your need for it, however. This means that you necessarily have the right to possess property if you can indeed acquire it. Claims to the contrary made by Marxists, collectivists and Michael Moore are empty. If you have no right to possess property once you have obtained it, those making this assertion must be making it naked while floating in empty rooms from which even air has been evacuated.
Your property right to yourself and your effort can be used to obtain rights to real property (land). He who first "mingles his labor with the land" earns a property right to it. What of land (or other property, for that matter) whose acquisition is disputed as being illegitimate? The longer an illegitimate claim goes uncontested, the more the passage of time legitimizes it – because the passage of time increases the possibility that an attempt to correct the illegitimate acquisition would harm parties who themselves have acted in good faith and who have committed no immoral actions. When redress of wrongs creates more wrong than it cures, it is not credible.
What is a property right, anyway? A right to property is the right to its use. If property belongs to no one, we have none, which contradicts the necessity of property. If we say all property belongs to everyone, we have a problem, because we would then only be able to use property with the mutual consent of every member of society. Because this is impossible, some delegation of humans within society would have to make this determination – and it would then be those people, not all the people, who hold the property right.
This points to a critical issue concerning rights. Either you recognize that you have sole dominion over your person, as does each human, or you do not. If you do not, you are saying either that all of society – the Collective, the State, whomever – has first right to you as property, or that some other person does.
A right is, by definition, unquestionable, and not dependent on some responsibility on your part. Many times, those who support some infringement on your natural rights will appeal to the idea that "With rights come responsibilities." This is not true. A right carries with it no concomitant responsibility, because it is, by definition, inviolable. Responsibilities, by contrast, are accepted, not imposed.
You are born into society accepting, by virtue of your existence, exactly one clause of the "social contract" – the agreement not to infringe on the natural rights of your fellow human beings. Humans who operate according to this guideline obtain what they require from other humans through exchange to mutual benefit. They are traders, giving value for value received. No human being has a claim to your life or your assets simply because you are born into his society. Your property rights to your person remain intact and inalienable regardless of the circumstances of your birth.
Given these facts of existence, the only legitimate role of government in a free society is the protection of individuals' natural rights. That is why governments are instituted among human beings – or at least, that is why they should be.
When a government denies its citizens' rights or actively seeks to infringe on these rights, it subordinates the individual to the state and injures that individual in the name of the community. By what right is this done? By what right is this force initiated and this theft made? How dare New York's commie libs steal the right of self–defense through their burdensome taxes and their obvious schemes for future confiscation? They have no right to do this; there is no justification for it.
Self-defense is an individual right and, as such, is inviolable ... no matter what lies Democrats tell.
Phil Elmore is a freelance author, technical writer and publisher of the self-defense e-zine The Martialist. This article originally appeard at WND.com
March 10, 2011 © 2011
The state in which I live, New York, is contemplating a law that would register and tax every firearm in the state. Already ruling the state most hostile to gun owners, New York's Democrats wish to enact a precursor to confiscation that is not just transparent in its intensions, but onerous in its financial burdens. What is often lost in debates over laws of this type is what they truly say to the citizens they affect. A law that restricts the technology of self-defense is a law that criminalizes self-defense itself. It is a law that violates your civil rights. It is a direct affront to you as a human being.
The Founding Fathers of the United States indicated their acceptance of, and based the United States Constitution on, the concept of natural rights. For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter if you believe in God or not. Most deists and theists believe rights are God-granted, while others believe natural rights come from nature. Natural rights exist regardless.
Because you are a discrete biological entity, you are an individual. Every group of people can be broken into individuals. No group of people can exist as a single living organism because they simply aren't one, any more than a parking lot full of cars can be a single automobile.
Because no human can be another human, no one can live another's life. By virtue of your nature as an individual, you are born with the inalienable property right to yourself as a person. This means that no human being has a claim on your time or your effort without your consent. Think about it. If you do not own you, who does? If you are anything but your own property, you belong to someone else, which makes you that someone's slave. Are you a slave?
Your property right to your person extends to a general right to possess legally acquired property, for no human can exist without property of some kind. This is an axiom of existence. You cannot exist in space unconnected to all other existents, the sole resident of an empty bubble of space-time. This does not mean you have an automatic claim to someone else's property by virtue of your need for it, however. This means that you necessarily have the right to possess property if you can indeed acquire it. Claims to the contrary made by Marxists, collectivists and Michael Moore are empty. If you have no right to possess property once you have obtained it, those making this assertion must be making it naked while floating in empty rooms from which even air has been evacuated.
Your property right to yourself and your effort can be used to obtain rights to real property (land). He who first "mingles his labor with the land" earns a property right to it. What of land (or other property, for that matter) whose acquisition is disputed as being illegitimate? The longer an illegitimate claim goes uncontested, the more the passage of time legitimizes it – because the passage of time increases the possibility that an attempt to correct the illegitimate acquisition would harm parties who themselves have acted in good faith and who have committed no immoral actions. When redress of wrongs creates more wrong than it cures, it is not credible.
What is a property right, anyway? A right to property is the right to its use. If property belongs to no one, we have none, which contradicts the necessity of property. If we say all property belongs to everyone, we have a problem, because we would then only be able to use property with the mutual consent of every member of society. Because this is impossible, some delegation of humans within society would have to make this determination – and it would then be those people, not all the people, who hold the property right.
This points to a critical issue concerning rights. Either you recognize that you have sole dominion over your person, as does each human, or you do not. If you do not, you are saying either that all of society – the Collective, the State, whomever – has first right to you as property, or that some other person does.
A right is, by definition, unquestionable, and not dependent on some responsibility on your part. Many times, those who support some infringement on your natural rights will appeal to the idea that "With rights come responsibilities." This is not true. A right carries with it no concomitant responsibility, because it is, by definition, inviolable. Responsibilities, by contrast, are accepted, not imposed.
You are born into society accepting, by virtue of your existence, exactly one clause of the "social contract" – the agreement not to infringe on the natural rights of your fellow human beings. Humans who operate according to this guideline obtain what they require from other humans through exchange to mutual benefit. They are traders, giving value for value received. No human being has a claim to your life or your assets simply because you are born into his society. Your property rights to your person remain intact and inalienable regardless of the circumstances of your birth.
Given these facts of existence, the only legitimate role of government in a free society is the protection of individuals' natural rights. That is why governments are instituted among human beings – or at least, that is why they should be.
When a government denies its citizens' rights or actively seeks to infringe on these rights, it subordinates the individual to the state and injures that individual in the name of the community. By what right is this done? By what right is this force initiated and this theft made? How dare New York's commie libs steal the right of self–defense through their burdensome taxes and their obvious schemes for future confiscation? They have no right to do this; there is no justification for it.
Self-defense is an individual right and, as such, is inviolable ... no matter what lies Democrats tell.
Phil Elmore is a freelance author, technical writer and publisher of the self-defense e-zine The Martialist. This article originally appeard at WND.com
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
It’s not all Bad News
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday against government suppression of free speech. The Court ruled that Illinois students have the right to wear anti-gay shirt. The shirt in question said “Be Happy Not Gay.”
Justice took a long time. A teen sued in 2006 after school officials blacked out the words "Not Gay" on her T-shirt. The incident happened the day after a "Day of Silence," which was held to draw attention to the harassment of gay students.
The court rightly said a school that "permits advocacy of the rights of homosexual students cannot be allowed to stifle criticism of homosexuality."
This is clearly an action where the US courts correctly protected free speech. There is Hope for America as this is a clear indication that we live in a country of laws, where all laws apply equally to everybody. It’s easy to stand up for the rights of those we agree with but the true test of liberty is when we protect the rights of those whose opinions we don’t agree.
Justice took a long time. A teen sued in 2006 after school officials blacked out the words "Not Gay" on her T-shirt. The incident happened the day after a "Day of Silence," which was held to draw attention to the harassment of gay students.
The court rightly said a school that "permits advocacy of the rights of homosexual students cannot be allowed to stifle criticism of homosexuality."
This is clearly an action where the US courts correctly protected free speech. There is Hope for America as this is a clear indication that we live in a country of laws, where all laws apply equally to everybody. It’s easy to stand up for the rights of those we agree with but the true test of liberty is when we protect the rights of those whose opinions we don’t agree.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Why America is un-civil, and why Obama fundamentally cannot “save” the USA.
Obama’s State of the Union Speech, was the clearest demonstration of why he cannot save America, and why so many people oppose him. His unmemorable oratory offered a clear insight to his vision and belief system. His vision and belief does not match nor agree with the vision most Americans have, and is fundamentally opposed to the vision our forefathers had.
During the SOTUS he Obama said, "We are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea -- the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny." That is a far cry from the reasoning described in our Declaration of Independence, where our forefathers decreed that as Americans “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.”
Our Declaration of Independence declared Americans to be free, and the people the source of government authority, and that the rights people have did not come from the government but from a Creator. The faith of our forefathers was not in themselves, or in the people, but in God. Anybody who takes the time to read what our forefathers had to say, clearly understand that they put into place a system of governance based on the idea that government is not to be trusted, so must have checks and balances to minimize its power. They did not believe the government was a “force of good” but a “necessary evil” to be caged and guarded against.
Obama’s faith is not God but in ideas of communal unity dependent upon government; "We believe that in a country where every race and faith and point of view can be found, we are still bound together as one people." and later "We'll also work to rebuild people's faith in the institution of government."
The idea that people’s faith is in government is so contrary to what most people believe that we cannot even have rational discussions. When Obama talks of “Investments” he is not talking the same language as most of the working people in this country. His idea of investments is the government spending taxpayer dollars, not private enterprise investing in new or expanding private enterprise. Obama’s mentioned the story of America as "the story of ordinary people who dare to dream." But does not recognize the reason we dare to dream is as individuals we can be rewarded for our hard work and that our rights come from our creator and we instituted a government to protect those rights. Obama never recognized any rights in his speech, only emphasized what the government should be the source of our salvation.
Our fundamental values are not the same as Obama’s, we must recognize that, For America to have real solutions to our problems, we cannot allow our government to tax all the productive people and business to death; we cannot supply every need for every person. What our government can do and was instituted to do was to provide the rule of law, and equal protection, by protecting our rights, so that all individuals have the chance to make their lives better; that’s called “the pursuit of happiness.” It is not the job or duty of government to make sure everybody is successful in that pursuit.
The fundamental idea that our nation was founded on were no were articulated in Obama’s SOTUS, in fact he has never mentioned them. Our nation was founded on the ideas that no ruler nor government is above the law; that government is to be constrained; that it is instated to protect the rights of individuals; that it is the servant of the people; and that the it only governs at the consent of the people. Unless we can agree on the fundamental purpose of our government, we cannot and will not be “bound together as one people." Since Obama and liberals who follow him do not believe or value the founding principles of this country and are working for “fundamental change,” he and the liberals who follow him will only divide further divide this country, because most of the people do believe in unalienable rights and limited government. The only “hope” we have to keep our liberty is that his reign is short.
During the SOTUS he Obama said, "We are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea -- the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny." That is a far cry from the reasoning described in our Declaration of Independence, where our forefathers decreed that as Americans “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.”
Our Declaration of Independence declared Americans to be free, and the people the source of government authority, and that the rights people have did not come from the government but from a Creator. The faith of our forefathers was not in themselves, or in the people, but in God. Anybody who takes the time to read what our forefathers had to say, clearly understand that they put into place a system of governance based on the idea that government is not to be trusted, so must have checks and balances to minimize its power. They did not believe the government was a “force of good” but a “necessary evil” to be caged and guarded against.
Obama’s faith is not God but in ideas of communal unity dependent upon government; "We believe that in a country where every race and faith and point of view can be found, we are still bound together as one people." and later "We'll also work to rebuild people's faith in the institution of government."
The idea that people’s faith is in government is so contrary to what most people believe that we cannot even have rational discussions. When Obama talks of “Investments” he is not talking the same language as most of the working people in this country. His idea of investments is the government spending taxpayer dollars, not private enterprise investing in new or expanding private enterprise. Obama’s mentioned the story of America as "the story of ordinary people who dare to dream." But does not recognize the reason we dare to dream is as individuals we can be rewarded for our hard work and that our rights come from our creator and we instituted a government to protect those rights. Obama never recognized any rights in his speech, only emphasized what the government should be the source of our salvation.
Our fundamental values are not the same as Obama’s, we must recognize that, For America to have real solutions to our problems, we cannot allow our government to tax all the productive people and business to death; we cannot supply every need for every person. What our government can do and was instituted to do was to provide the rule of law, and equal protection, by protecting our rights, so that all individuals have the chance to make their lives better; that’s called “the pursuit of happiness.” It is not the job or duty of government to make sure everybody is successful in that pursuit.
The fundamental idea that our nation was founded on were no were articulated in Obama’s SOTUS, in fact he has never mentioned them. Our nation was founded on the ideas that no ruler nor government is above the law; that government is to be constrained; that it is instated to protect the rights of individuals; that it is the servant of the people; and that the it only governs at the consent of the people. Unless we can agree on the fundamental purpose of our government, we cannot and will not be “bound together as one people." Since Obama and liberals who follow him do not believe or value the founding principles of this country and are working for “fundamental change,” he and the liberals who follow him will only divide further divide this country, because most of the people do believe in unalienable rights and limited government. The only “hope” we have to keep our liberty is that his reign is short.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
We are Teaching Our Youth to Accept Totalitarianism
It starts out the very first class in Kindergarten, because there are not unlimited funds, the kids are given a list of things the class needs, and everybody is expected to bring: safety scissors, crayons, etc. Now because not all kids can afford those things a note is added that asks if you can that you also buy enough for another student. Generously that happens and usually there is extra. So far so good, the kids see charity and voluntary caring for those less fortunate. Then the Kindergarten teacher gets all socialist. Rather than let each student keep and use the property they brought in, and give the extras to those who couldn’t afford any, demonstrating that Americans can and will voluntarily help those less fortunate, all the supplies get combined into individual tubs, all the scissors in one tub, crayons in another, they all become everybody’s community property. This way the kid who’s parents bought the best Crayola crayons doesn’t have something better than the kid who’s parents could only afford the cheap generic ones. It’s not “fair” that some have nicer things than others and we are trying to teach that community property is better than private property. In fact private property rights of children are suppressed and treated as evil.
Next year in first grade when the parents get the list almost all of them purchases the cheapest stuff they can, because since it all becomes community property, there is no reason to provide the best you can, your kid will probably not benefit from your added expense, since there is no ownership, there is incentive to provide the best. Since nobody will see that there is charity to those who are less fortunate, few parents provide extra for the community, and often there is not enough to go around, so some of last year’s old worn out supplies are recycled, or pleas for more support are issued. It’s not “fair” that some get better, or have more, etc. so right from the start the first lesson our schools teach is community property, and it’s not fair that some have more than others. Although not said our actions in school teach socialism.
When our children go to middle and high school, the Bill of Rights is barely mentioned, but the actions of the school are that the “Authority” has the right to search you whenever they want; force you to testify against yourself, you have no right to defend yourself, you have no freedom of speech, you have no right to privacy, you have no right to a fair hearing or trial, and due process is what the authorities say it is. Arbitrary rules with no basis in fact can and are abusively enforced. If at lunch you use a plastic knife to spread peanut butter on your crackers; you’re expelled for having a knife on campus. Imagine a 15 yr old girl expelled for having a Mydol to relieve cramps from her monthly friend. Or an 8 year old boy suspended for drawing a soldier with a gun (his dad’s in the National Guard). How about throwing both the bully and the victim out of school for fighting, doesn’t matter who started it if you hit back and defend yourself your suspended or expelled, you have no right to either due process or self defense.
When two Norview High School teachers distributed classroom materials to a 12th grade government class, which gave advice on how to deal with police if stopped, they were placed on paid administrative leave because the materials where “unauthorized.” They’d shown a video from Flex Your Rights which explains how legal rights apply to police searches of vehicles, homes or individuals and how people can cite those rights during encounters with police. Clearly it’s unauthorized to teach students when and how they can tell authorities no. (Watch the Video)
The results are that our students know that the authorities can abuse them and that bucking authority has swift arbitrary punishment without due process, and although they may have “rights” the reality is they are subjects to authoritarian rule. Worse is the fact that they are ignorant of their rights and how our government works. In a national survey of high school students it was revealed that only:
2% can identify the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
35% know that "we the people" are the first three words of the U.S. Constitution
1.8% know that James Madison is considered the father of the U.S. Constitution
25% know that the Fifth Amendment protects against double jeopardy and self incrimination, among other legal rights.
Think it gets better in college, visit http://www.thefire.org and review the legal cases they have fought. Look at all the cases they have exposed where due process is denied and the arbitrary dictates of University Leaders are the law, and students have no rights except not to be offended. They give most Florida Universities a red light on protecting individual rights. Just note that at the University of Florida examples of Prohibited Conduct Include, but Are Not Limited To:
Writing or displaying letters, notes, or e-mails which are derogatory toward any individual's race, color, marital status, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or military status.
Making comments, slurs, or jokes which are derogatory toward any individual's race, color, marital status, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or military status. ...
Making gestures or displaying pictures, cartoons, posters, or magazines which are derogatory toward any individual's race, color, marital status, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or military status ....
I guess if you’re a college student at UF, you have to watch South Park in secret. The First Amendment at this publicly funded university is not even a consideration. Again we teach that the authorities have the right to control what you say and do.
Is it a wonder that since from the day kids start school until the graduate college the actions of our schools hammer into them the fact that those in power can control you, and we don’t teach by action or word what unalienable rights are, or the founding principles of our country and government, that there is no outcry when our President acts like a third world despot. Due process and the rule of law are not discussed and definitely not demonstrated by our schools to our children.
Look at our public elementary and secondary schools, they look like prisons, bared doors, armed polices wandering the halls, and nearly constant surveillance. Our student’s time in school is marked by overreaching zero tolerance policies, heightened security and surveillance and a greater emphasis on conformity. The result is the acceptance of destruction of privacy and freedom. In fact I believe we are now in The War on Kids www.thewaronkids.com
Maybe that’s been the goal all along, to change the education system to teach the people to accept totalitarianism. It is the results.
How else do you explain the people of this country accepting the third world like despotism of Obama extorting 20 billion from BP without due process? When did Obama become Judge and Jury and get granted the power to adjudicate crime and pass sentences on private corporations? He’s not a judge. When did Obama get the power and authority to create laws that allows the federal government to take the assets of a private company and determine how best to distribute them to people the private company may have hurt without a trial? He’s no longer a Senator. What law granted Obama the power and authority to deny BP due process? When did the USA become a totalitarian state with the President having the powers to dictate the actions of private companies? When we took teaching civics and the bill of rights out of our schools and taught socialism and totalitarianism by example.
Obama is acting like a King not a president. Our schools have taught our children to accept totalitarianism. Imagine if they were teaching what a few decades ago was common. We must change what and how our schools teach our children about civil rights and government. Graduating high school students don’t even know as much as kids who watched Saturday morning TV did in the 70’s. When was the last time you heard or saw a School House Rock video? I’ll close with the lyrics of the School House Rock song No More Kings (Watch Here)
Rockin' and a-rollin', splishin' and a-splashin',
Over the horizon, what can it be?
The pilgrims sailed the sea
To find a place to call their own.
In their ship Mayflower,
They hoped to find a better home.
They finally knocked
On Plymouth Rock
And someone said, "We're there."
It may not look like home
But at this point I don't care.
Oh, they were missing Mother England,
They swore their loyalty until the very end.
Anything you say, King,
It's OK, King,
You know it's kinda scary on your own.
Gonna build a new land
The way we planned.
Could you help us run it till it's grown?
They planted corn, you know
They built their houses one by one,
And bit by bit they worked
Until the colonies were done.
They looked around,
Yeah, up and down,
And someone said, "Hurray!"
If the king could only see us now
He would be proud of us today.
They knew that now they'd run their own land,
But George the Third still vowed
He'd rule them till the end.
Anything I say, do it my way now.
Anything I say, do it my way.
Don't you get to feeling independent
'Cause I'm gonna force you to obey.
He taxed their property,
He didn't give them any choice,
And back in England,
He didn't give them any voice.
(That's called taxation without representation,
and it's not fair!)
But when the Colonies complained
The king said: "I don't care!"
He even has the nerve
To tax our cup of tea.
To put it kindly, King,
We really don't agree.
Gonna show you how we feel.
We're gonna dump this tea
And turn this harbor into
The biggest cup of tea in history!
They wanted no more Mother England.
They knew the time had come
For them to take command.
It's very clear you're being unfair, King,
No matter what you say, we won't obey.
Gonna hold a revolution now, King,
And we're gonna run it all our way
With no more kings...
We're gonna elect a president! (No more kings)
He's gonna do what the people want! (No more kings)
We're gonna run things our way! (No more kings)
Nobody's gonna tell us what to do!
Rockin' and a-rollin', splishin' and a-splashin',
Over the horizon, what can it be?
Looks like it's going to be a free country.
Next year in first grade when the parents get the list almost all of them purchases the cheapest stuff they can, because since it all becomes community property, there is no reason to provide the best you can, your kid will probably not benefit from your added expense, since there is no ownership, there is incentive to provide the best. Since nobody will see that there is charity to those who are less fortunate, few parents provide extra for the community, and often there is not enough to go around, so some of last year’s old worn out supplies are recycled, or pleas for more support are issued. It’s not “fair” that some get better, or have more, etc. so right from the start the first lesson our schools teach is community property, and it’s not fair that some have more than others. Although not said our actions in school teach socialism.
When our children go to middle and high school, the Bill of Rights is barely mentioned, but the actions of the school are that the “Authority” has the right to search you whenever they want; force you to testify against yourself, you have no right to defend yourself, you have no freedom of speech, you have no right to privacy, you have no right to a fair hearing or trial, and due process is what the authorities say it is. Arbitrary rules with no basis in fact can and are abusively enforced. If at lunch you use a plastic knife to spread peanut butter on your crackers; you’re expelled for having a knife on campus. Imagine a 15 yr old girl expelled for having a Mydol to relieve cramps from her monthly friend. Or an 8 year old boy suspended for drawing a soldier with a gun (his dad’s in the National Guard). How about throwing both the bully and the victim out of school for fighting, doesn’t matter who started it if you hit back and defend yourself your suspended or expelled, you have no right to either due process or self defense.
When two Norview High School teachers distributed classroom materials to a 12th grade government class, which gave advice on how to deal with police if stopped, they were placed on paid administrative leave because the materials where “unauthorized.” They’d shown a video from Flex Your Rights which explains how legal rights apply to police searches of vehicles, homes or individuals and how people can cite those rights during encounters with police. Clearly it’s unauthorized to teach students when and how they can tell authorities no. (Watch the Video)
The results are that our students know that the authorities can abuse them and that bucking authority has swift arbitrary punishment without due process, and although they may have “rights” the reality is they are subjects to authoritarian rule. Worse is the fact that they are ignorant of their rights and how our government works. In a national survey of high school students it was revealed that only:
Think it gets better in college, visit http://www.thefire.org and review the legal cases they have fought. Look at all the cases they have exposed where due process is denied and the arbitrary dictates of University Leaders are the law, and students have no rights except not to be offended. They give most Florida Universities a red light on protecting individual rights. Just note that at the University of Florida examples of Prohibited Conduct Include, but Are Not Limited To:
I guess if you’re a college student at UF, you have to watch South Park in secret. The First Amendment at this publicly funded university is not even a consideration. Again we teach that the authorities have the right to control what you say and do.
Is it a wonder that since from the day kids start school until the graduate college the actions of our schools hammer into them the fact that those in power can control you, and we don’t teach by action or word what unalienable rights are, or the founding principles of our country and government, that there is no outcry when our President acts like a third world despot. Due process and the rule of law are not discussed and definitely not demonstrated by our schools to our children.
Look at our public elementary and secondary schools, they look like prisons, bared doors, armed polices wandering the halls, and nearly constant surveillance. Our student’s time in school is marked by overreaching zero tolerance policies, heightened security and surveillance and a greater emphasis on conformity. The result is the acceptance of destruction of privacy and freedom. In fact I believe we are now in The War on Kids www.thewaronkids.com
Maybe that’s been the goal all along, to change the education system to teach the people to accept totalitarianism. It is the results.
How else do you explain the people of this country accepting the third world like despotism of Obama extorting 20 billion from BP without due process? When did Obama become Judge and Jury and get granted the power to adjudicate crime and pass sentences on private corporations? He’s not a judge. When did Obama get the power and authority to create laws that allows the federal government to take the assets of a private company and determine how best to distribute them to people the private company may have hurt without a trial? He’s no longer a Senator. What law granted Obama the power and authority to deny BP due process? When did the USA become a totalitarian state with the President having the powers to dictate the actions of private companies? When we took teaching civics and the bill of rights out of our schools and taught socialism and totalitarianism by example.
Obama is acting like a King not a president. Our schools have taught our children to accept totalitarianism. Imagine if they were teaching what a few decades ago was common. We must change what and how our schools teach our children about civil rights and government. Graduating high school students don’t even know as much as kids who watched Saturday morning TV did in the 70’s. When was the last time you heard or saw a School House Rock video? I’ll close with the lyrics of the School House Rock song No More Kings (Watch Here)
Rockin' and a-rollin', splishin' and a-splashin',
Over the horizon, what can it be?
The pilgrims sailed the sea
To find a place to call their own.
In their ship Mayflower,
They hoped to find a better home.
They finally knocked
On Plymouth Rock
And someone said, "We're there."
It may not look like home
But at this point I don't care.
Oh, they were missing Mother England,
They swore their loyalty until the very end.
Anything you say, King,
It's OK, King,
You know it's kinda scary on your own.
Gonna build a new land
The way we planned.
Could you help us run it till it's grown?
They planted corn, you know
They built their houses one by one,
And bit by bit they worked
Until the colonies were done.
They looked around,
Yeah, up and down,
And someone said, "Hurray!"
If the king could only see us now
He would be proud of us today.
They knew that now they'd run their own land,
But George the Third still vowed
He'd rule them till the end.
Anything I say, do it my way now.
Anything I say, do it my way.
Don't you get to feeling independent
'Cause I'm gonna force you to obey.
He taxed their property,
He didn't give them any choice,
And back in England,
He didn't give them any voice.
(That's called taxation without representation,
and it's not fair!)
But when the Colonies complained
The king said: "I don't care!"
He even has the nerve
To tax our cup of tea.
To put it kindly, King,
We really don't agree.
Gonna show you how we feel.
We're gonna dump this tea
And turn this harbor into
The biggest cup of tea in history!
They wanted no more Mother England.
They knew the time had come
For them to take command.
It's very clear you're being unfair, King,
No matter what you say, we won't obey.
Gonna hold a revolution now, King,
And we're gonna run it all our way
With no more kings...
We're gonna elect a president! (No more kings)
He's gonna do what the people want! (No more kings)
We're gonna run things our way! (No more kings)
Nobody's gonna tell us what to do!
Rockin' and a-rollin', splishin' and a-splashin',
Over the horizon, what can it be?
Looks like it's going to be a free country.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
111th Congress Assaults Civil Rights
Former Libertarian Presidential Candidate Bob Barr points out how the current contress is assaulting Civil Liberties at an alarming rate.
Pre-paid cell phones may be outlawed
June 7, 2010, by Bob Barr
This session of the 111th Congress has been one that will go down in infamy by virtue of its assault on privacy and other civil liberties. Several of these problematic provisions have not yet made it to President Barack Obama’s desk, but in today’s political environment, resisting them will be difficult. Many in the Congress still tremble as a result of the Times Square bombing attempt; even as many also remain gripped by the hysteria surrounding the as-yet unproven Toyota rogue acceleration problem.
The latest civil liberties victim of Times Square Brainiac Faisal Shahzad’s feeble attempt at terrorism fame is the pre-paid cell phone. This innocuous device, available now to virtually anyone wishing to buy a cheap cell phone useable for a limited period, represents perhaps the last opportunity for a person to communicate anonymously. Yet, these devices are being targeted for extinction by a pair of United States Senators simply because the failed Times Square bomber used one in his preparatory activities; and law enforcement discovered this not because the purchase of the cell phone was recorded in an accessible database, but because Shahzad made at least one call to a number already on a government list of suspected terrorists.
Democratic New York Sen. Chuck Schumer now has teamed with his Republican colleague from Texas, John Cornyn, and introduced a bill that would employ the heavy hand of federal law to prohibit anonymous cell phones. Leaving aside the question of where the Congress finds authority in the Constitution to do this, it is certain that many of their colleagues will jump at this latest chance to prove they are as tough on terrorists as the next guy, whatever the cost to the rest of the citizenry.
While Sens. Schumer and Cornyn may believe that the only people who purchase prepaid cell phones are terrorists, the fact is, many average, law-abiding citizens use such devices regularly. Some people do so because they may not have the funds or the creditworthiness to buy a cell phone with a network plan. Others may do so precisely because of the anonymity such phones offer; something especially important for journalists to be able to protect communications with their sources from being revealed.
No matter to Schumer or Cornyn. To prevent one possible bad guy from purchasing a single prepaid cell phone, they’ll use their power as senators to prevent anyone from having one.
The Times Square incident is not the only reason the Congress is seeking to curb the rights and privacy of all Americans. The hysteria resulting from last spring’s Toyota recall has energized the Congress to accelerate a move to require “black box” computers in every new car sold in America. This legislation, which was recently passed out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and is likely fast-tracked for an election-year floor vote, not only will add to the cost of a new vehicle but raises a host of privacy problems for the owners and drivers of such vehicles.
In typical fashion, the House committee left it up to bureaucrats at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to decide what information the black boxes will monitor and record. The actual owner of the vehicle will not know what information about his car or his driving is being recorded, or who will have access to the data.
In perhaps the most outrageous assault yet on Americans’ civil liberties this Congress, the House recently voted (with no Democrats and only 32 Republicans opposed) to greatly expand government’s ability to forcibly collect DNA samples from persons simply arrested for alleged criminal behavior. The measure does this by giving taxpayer monies to any state that passes a law doing the federal government’s bidding in this regard.
One shudders to contemplate what the next Congress will do to match or exceed the anti-civil liberties record of this one.
Pre-paid cell phones may be outlawed
June 7, 2010, by Bob Barr
This session of the 111th Congress has been one that will go down in infamy by virtue of its assault on privacy and other civil liberties. Several of these problematic provisions have not yet made it to President Barack Obama’s desk, but in today’s political environment, resisting them will be difficult. Many in the Congress still tremble as a result of the Times Square bombing attempt; even as many also remain gripped by the hysteria surrounding the as-yet unproven Toyota rogue acceleration problem.
The latest civil liberties victim of Times Square Brainiac Faisal Shahzad’s feeble attempt at terrorism fame is the pre-paid cell phone. This innocuous device, available now to virtually anyone wishing to buy a cheap cell phone useable for a limited period, represents perhaps the last opportunity for a person to communicate anonymously. Yet, these devices are being targeted for extinction by a pair of United States Senators simply because the failed Times Square bomber used one in his preparatory activities; and law enforcement discovered this not because the purchase of the cell phone was recorded in an accessible database, but because Shahzad made at least one call to a number already on a government list of suspected terrorists.
Democratic New York Sen. Chuck Schumer now has teamed with his Republican colleague from Texas, John Cornyn, and introduced a bill that would employ the heavy hand of federal law to prohibit anonymous cell phones. Leaving aside the question of where the Congress finds authority in the Constitution to do this, it is certain that many of their colleagues will jump at this latest chance to prove they are as tough on terrorists as the next guy, whatever the cost to the rest of the citizenry.
While Sens. Schumer and Cornyn may believe that the only people who purchase prepaid cell phones are terrorists, the fact is, many average, law-abiding citizens use such devices regularly. Some people do so because they may not have the funds or the creditworthiness to buy a cell phone with a network plan. Others may do so precisely because of the anonymity such phones offer; something especially important for journalists to be able to protect communications with their sources from being revealed.
No matter to Schumer or Cornyn. To prevent one possible bad guy from purchasing a single prepaid cell phone, they’ll use their power as senators to prevent anyone from having one.
The Times Square incident is not the only reason the Congress is seeking to curb the rights and privacy of all Americans. The hysteria resulting from last spring’s Toyota recall has energized the Congress to accelerate a move to require “black box” computers in every new car sold in America. This legislation, which was recently passed out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and is likely fast-tracked for an election-year floor vote, not only will add to the cost of a new vehicle but raises a host of privacy problems for the owners and drivers of such vehicles.
In typical fashion, the House committee left it up to bureaucrats at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to decide what information the black boxes will monitor and record. The actual owner of the vehicle will not know what information about his car or his driving is being recorded, or who will have access to the data.
In perhaps the most outrageous assault yet on Americans’ civil liberties this Congress, the House recently voted (with no Democrats and only 32 Republicans opposed) to greatly expand government’s ability to forcibly collect DNA samples from persons simply arrested for alleged criminal behavior. The measure does this by giving taxpayer monies to any state that passes a law doing the federal government’s bidding in this regard.
One shudders to contemplate what the next Congress will do to match or exceed the anti-civil liberties record of this one.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Why I Don't Respect the Law
Some of my Christian brothers, and some of my conservative friends have frequently commented on my lack of “respect” for law enforcement, and laws in general. To quote Alfred Hitchcock, “I’m not against the police, I’m just afraid of them.” The reason I will not cooperate with any government official for any reason is that I cannot be reasonably assured that I’m not breaking the law in any activity. A Reasonable person cannot exist in "Overcriminalized" America, without breaking a law.
In the past year or so I’ve read of high school kids being arrested for having a butter knife at school, a 12 year old handcuffed and detained for eating a french-fry on the DC subway, and 61 year old Kay Leinbrand arrested for letting her hedges grow too tall. I’ll bet dollars to donuts that none of these people intended to break the law, or even had an inkling of an idea that they were breaking the law.
“….there is no conveniently accessible, complete list o federal crimes.” reported the American Bar Association. There are over 4000 federal laws, and over 300,000 thousand federal regulations. Add to that countless state and local laws and it is impossible not to be “Ignorant of the Law.” You want to find out how bad it is, there is a new word for it; Overcriminalization.
From Overcriminalized.com
Less than 100 years ago to be be convicted of a crime the prosecution had to not only prove that you committed an criminal act, but that you had intent to commit an illegal act. A person had to be proven to have a “guilty mind.” That meant the accused could understand that the actions leading to arrest were wrong. This protected people from being arrested for simple mistakes. Now intent has no bearing.
Assume your loved one is off with their National Guard unit in the Middle East. And to show your support for your loved one you put a big plastic yellow ribbon around the oak tree in your front yard. Depending on where you live this may be a crime, and you may be fined, excessively for littering or endangering the tree, etc., regardless of the intent, purpose, or other relevant behavior.
According to Edwin Meese III, the former attorney general, “the average American, the average business person and the average corporation have little or no hope of knowing all of the thousands of criminal-law statutes -- and tens of thousands of criminal-law regulations -- by which they must abide in order to remain on the right side of the law.”
It got so bad here in Florida the government passed a law to force people to get a license to become an Interior Decorator.” Imagine having to pass a test, take hundreds of hours of approved classes, to tell people what color to paint a room and where to hang a picture, and that "Shag" carpeting is "In" again. Luckily a Florida judged ruled the practice to law to be unconstitutional. Laws like this don’t protect the consumer, but they do protect existing Interior Decorators from new competition. All this kind of law does is give to the government more power and increase prices.
Talk to any law enforcement officer and you’ll soon detect the “Us Vs. Them” mentality, they assume everybody is a criminal and have to prove they are not. Law enforcement is not your friend anymore. They can and will lie, cheat, and coerce to prove a person is guilty of something. Sense it is virtually impossible for you, or any business to actually follow all the laws we now have, it is vitally important that you protect yourself from the government. This video explains exactly why you should never under any circumstances talk to any government official. Watch the whole thing and play close attention to how the cop explains how he can and will trip you up.
Even Barney Frank recognizes that we no longer live in a Free society. I'll end with a very telling and compelling quote from the long standing senator. "Criminalizing choices . . . when the choices involved have no negative effect on the rights of others, is not appropriate in a free society."
– Barney Frank (2009)
In the past year or so I’ve read of high school kids being arrested for having a butter knife at school, a 12 year old handcuffed and detained for eating a french-fry on the DC subway, and 61 year old Kay Leinbrand arrested for letting her hedges grow too tall. I’ll bet dollars to donuts that none of these people intended to break the law, or even had an inkling of an idea that they were breaking the law.
“….there is no conveniently accessible, complete list o federal crimes.” reported the American Bar Association. There are over 4000 federal laws, and over 300,000 thousand federal regulations. Add to that countless state and local laws and it is impossible not to be “Ignorant of the Law.” You want to find out how bad it is, there is a new word for it; Overcriminalization.
From Overcriminalized.com
Overcriminalization” describes the trend in America – and particularly in Congress – to use the criminal law to “solve” every problem, punish every mistake (instead of making proper use of civil penalties), and coerce Americans into conforming their behavior to satisfy social engineering objectives. Criminal law is supposed to be used to redress only that conduct which society thinks deserving of the greatest punishment and moral sanction.
But as a result of rampant overcriminalization, trivial conduct is now often punished as a crime. Many criminal laws make it possible for the government to convict a person even if he acted without criminal intent (i.e., mens rea). Sentences have skyrocketed, particularly at the federal level.
Less than 100 years ago to be be convicted of a crime the prosecution had to not only prove that you committed an criminal act, but that you had intent to commit an illegal act. A person had to be proven to have a “guilty mind.” That meant the accused could understand that the actions leading to arrest were wrong. This protected people from being arrested for simple mistakes. Now intent has no bearing.
Assume your loved one is off with their National Guard unit in the Middle East. And to show your support for your loved one you put a big plastic yellow ribbon around the oak tree in your front yard. Depending on where you live this may be a crime, and you may be fined, excessively for littering or endangering the tree, etc., regardless of the intent, purpose, or other relevant behavior.
According to Edwin Meese III, the former attorney general, “the average American, the average business person and the average corporation have little or no hope of knowing all of the thousands of criminal-law statutes -- and tens of thousands of criminal-law regulations -- by which they must abide in order to remain on the right side of the law.”
It got so bad here in Florida the government passed a law to force people to get a license to become an Interior Decorator.” Imagine having to pass a test, take hundreds of hours of approved classes, to tell people what color to paint a room and where to hang a picture, and that "Shag" carpeting is "In" again. Luckily a Florida judged ruled the practice to law to be unconstitutional. Laws like this don’t protect the consumer, but they do protect existing Interior Decorators from new competition. All this kind of law does is give to the government more power and increase prices.
Talk to any law enforcement officer and you’ll soon detect the “Us Vs. Them” mentality, they assume everybody is a criminal and have to prove they are not. Law enforcement is not your friend anymore. They can and will lie, cheat, and coerce to prove a person is guilty of something. Sense it is virtually impossible for you, or any business to actually follow all the laws we now have, it is vitally important that you protect yourself from the government. This video explains exactly why you should never under any circumstances talk to any government official. Watch the whole thing and play close attention to how the cop explains how he can and will trip you up.
Even Barney Frank recognizes that we no longer live in a Free society. I'll end with a very telling and compelling quote from the long standing senator. "Criminalizing choices . . . when the choices involved have no negative effect on the rights of others, is not appropriate in a free society."
– Barney Frank (2009)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Must Read Pages on Liberty
The moral dilemma of today's statists - Walter Williams
Vox Populi
Learn more about liberty and economics from Vox's blog than just about any site on the net
Real Inflation Rate
Vox Populi
Learn more about liberty and economics from Vox's blog than just about any site on the net
Real Inflation Rate
Liberty Underground
