The International Conference on Global Governance vs. National Sovereignty, sponsored by American Freedom Alliance, concluded Monday in Los Angeles CA.
The chief question posed at the Conference’s opening: Is Global Governance vs. National Sovereignty the West’s next ideological war?
John Bolton, Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN gave Sunday morning’s Keynote Speech. Ambassador Bolton spoke from first hand experience, sharing front line knowledge accumulated through years of engagement in international diplomacy. He not only gave definition to the term “the Global Governance Movement”, he also described its agenda, which is to subvert national sovereignty in favor of a supranational authority through the invention and initiation of international laws and norms.
After his speech, Ambassador Bolton welcomed Dr. John Fonte, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for American Common Culture at the Hudson Institution, John Yoo, Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkley, Steven Groves, the Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow at the Heritage Institute’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, and Michael Shaw, guiding attorney for Freedom Advocates.org to the stage. The five elaborated intelligently on the consequences of increasing subservience by sovereign nations to the ideology of Global Governance. Both the political makeup and the ideological activism of the UN were indicted.
Following morning breakout sessions focused on:
Non-governmental organizations as purveyors of Global Governance
The Green Movement, Agenda 21, Global Warming alarmism and Global Governance
Who will control the Internet and who will control the seas
The afternoon was kicked off by a Keynote Speech by President Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic. President Klaus spoke directly of the prospects of Global Governance and its European variant, the European Union. Drawing upon his experience as a leader of a former Soviet bloc country, President Klaus warned against the threat of independent sovereign states surrendering control to an un-elected, unaccountable extra-national governing body in a distant capitol.
Larry Greenfield, National Executive Director of the Jewish Institution for National Security Affairs, invited Robert O’Brien, Managing Partner of the Los Angeles office of Arent Fox LLP, Donald Kochan, Professor of Law at Chapman University School of Law and Elan Journo, a fellow in foreign policy at the Ayn Rand Institute into a discussion about the politicization of international law and its impact on national sovereignty. Global and international law were identified as both threats to and the means by which national sovereignty is undermined.
Subsequent to afternoon breakout sessions focusing on:
The demonization/diminishment of the United States and Israel as a chief Global Governance strategy
Law-fare, international humanitarian law and their role in undermining sovereignty
The role of Islam in fostering and encouraging Global Governance
The Honorable John Howard, Australia’s 25th Prime Minister gave the day’s concluding Keynote Speech. The former Prime Minister discussed the concept of the nation state and why it still matters to countries that enjoy governance by popularly elected representative governments.
Sunday’s last panel, featuring President Klaus, Nonie Darwish, founder of Arabs for Israel, John Yoo and John Fonte discussed whether or not liberal democracies have the strength and will to defend their national sovereignty. The endurance of strong constitutions and distinct cultural identities were viewed as key elements in an ongoing uphill struggle by sovereign nation-states against the intrusions of Global Governance. Panelists considered these elements necessary to fending off the introduction and implementation of transnational ambitions by proponents of Global Governance.
The Conference reconvened Monday morning with a spirited discussion concerned with using the political process and judicial system to thwart and defeat Global Governance activism. A distinctly academic intellectual discussion about whether Constitutional Law was robust enough to prevent the political branches of government from violating the Constitution through treaties whose provisions conflict with constitutional guarantees was initiated by Eugene Volokh, professor of law at UCLA School of Law. Professor Volokh gave an extensive portrayal of why the introduction of Sharia Law into the American judicial system is not threatening U.S. Constitutional rule of law. His observations were challenged by Larry Greenfield, Steven Groves and by John Yoo. Professor Volokh’s defense of his position was based primarily on viewing individual situations and circumstances as singular, isolated potential constitutional violations easily rationalized away by equating Islam’s ambitions to those of other, more benign religious institutions found in America. This approach was resounding rejected by Stephen Coughlin, a fellow of the American Freedom Alliance, who successfully portrayed the fallacy of ignoring the global dominance agenda openly preached and taught by proponents of Islamic global dominance under Sharia Law. Mr. Coughlin’s remarks received applause from Conference attendees.
After an address by Professor Mike Farris of Patrick Henry University on how Global Governance threatens the nuclear family through international laws and treaties, the Conference concluded with a reading of and discussion about the Conference Declaration.
The Declaration of Los Angeles: Sovereignty, Democracy and Individual Rights are Indivisible.
We, the undersigned, do hereby append our signatures to the statement below and declare:
THAT national sovereignty, constitutional democracy and the protection of individual rights are indivisible.
THAT constitutional democratic representative government is the most successful political system ever devised by the human mind.
THAT democratic self-government has only existed—and can only exist—within the sovereign liberal democratic nation state in which the people rule themselves.
THAT the principles of liberty, national independence and democratic self-government as articulated in Britain’s establishment of parliamentary democracy, the founding of the American republic, the establishment of the state of Israel, the achievement of dominion status in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the traditional national sovereignty of European democracies, and the continuing growth of liberal democracy in Asia, Latin America and Africa, are superior to any forms of global governance.
THAT the assertion of constitutional government’s obsolescence and decline is utterly false.
THAT while international cooperation should be encouraged and international treaties respected, no supranational authority which claims jurisdiction over liberal democratic states without the consent of the governed should be accepted.
THAT non-governmental organizations which purport to represent an international constituency do not have the legal or political authority to speak for the citizens of liberal democratic nation states, only democratically elected representatives have such legitimate democratic authority.
THAT the constitutions of our respective nations remain the supreme and inalienable law of our lands and if ever a conflict arises between our respective constitutions and any form of supranational authority (such as interpretations of international law, rulings of the United Nations, judgements of international courts, etc.), our Constitutions and constitutional principles will always prevail.
THAT we call on leaders of democratic nation states to reject the demands of transnational advocates to subsume domestic law to international law and stand together with us in upholding the principles of national sovereignty while rejecting the claims and arguments of global governance advocates.
Spain’s economy is under such duress that the country is prepared to request a 40 billion Euro cash injection from the Euro zone this weekend. The request comes after Fitch Ratings reduced Spain’s credit by three notches on Thursday. This move will make Spain the fourth country to need a bailout since the European debt crisis began. The Spanish banking sector’s weakness and contagion from Greece’s debt crisis have put Spain’s economy in such a precarious position that the International Monetary Fund reported a need for 90 billion Euros to entirely cleanse Spain’s banking sector.
Much has been said about the problems of Greece and how those problems will impact the Eurozone. However, the size of Spain’s economy is over four times that of Greece’s. Spain’s 11.5% share of the Euro zone’s GDP has a far greater impact on European finances than does Greece’s 2.5%.
What the world is witnessing is the collapse of the European socialist economic model; the failure of government dependency. As more people become dependent on government, fewer people are left to pay the cost.
But it goes beyond simply spending other people’s money. The socialist entitlement mentality makes people less productive. As more and more people become less and less productive, an ever-smaller minority of productive people become responsible for shouldering the burdens of a completely lopsided, unfair system. When a tiny number of productive people are required to deprive themselves of the fruits of their own labor in order to finance the lives of the remaining population, where is the incentive for them to produce?
If that is not enough, reliance on a big government nanny state makes people less responsible for themselves, less self-reliant. That is the antithesis of the American way of life.
When European settlers colonized the New World, they left the security of Europe behind in favor of North America’s unknown wilderness. They left homes, family, friends and country behind in exchange for an opportunity to build better lives for themselves. They were freed from the constraints of Europe’s restrictive class system. They openly rejected the European way by leaving.
When the British Monarchy deemed to re-impose that system on Britain’s thirteen North American Colonies, that attempt was adamantly and thoroughly rejected. Hence the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution and the founding of the United States of America.
When America’s pioneers ventured west to traverse the Great Plains and cross the Rocky Mountains they were completely self reliant. They took care of themselves. They didn’t have, want, or need a big nanny state government to take care of them from cradle to grave.
This is the stuff of which America is made.
Because it gives them control over “the masses”, “progressives” have long sought to fashion America after the European socialist model, to make Americans more government dependent. There was FDR with the New Deal and Social Security. LBJ gave America the Great Society, Welfare Programs and Medicare. Now obama forces upon an unwilling America the crown jewel of European style socialism; government controlled medicine.
Every time obama holds a press conference he sounds exactly the way he has always sounded: he inherited the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. his policies are working, but need more time. Congress needs to quit stalling and enact more of his policies. The private sector is doing fine but to grow the economy government needs to spend more money to create more government jobs at the state and local level.
Coming as it does on the heels of the Wisconsin recall election, where such policies were rejected, this shows precisely how out of touch obama is with the private sector, how the economy works, American history and the nature of America’s people…and with reality.
Europe won’t work in America. Neither will an out of touch narcissist who insists on imposing a long rejected European system upon America.
In a televised address to parliament, President Bashar Assad said foreign-backed terrorists and extremists were to blame for the massacres going on in Syria. Despite suspicions expressed by the UN that Assad’s forces are responsible for the Houla massacre, Assad denied it. Syrian opposition condemned his comments as lies.
Assad described protestors as paid killers, ridiculing freedom demonstrators as people not truly looking for reform. The opposition is seeking reform in a country where expressing dissent often leads directly to arrest and torture. They contend that Assad has offered nothing but cosmetic changes.
A revolt that began as peaceful protests can now only be described as an armed insurgency. This can be attributed to the harsh government crackdown that led protestors to take up arms in self-defense.
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, barack obama and many other “progressive” politicians have called the Tea Party “teabaggers”, “racists”, “astroturf”, “Nazis” ” and “extremists” on multiple occasions. The Department of Homeland Security issued a report that described the Tea Party as “right-wing extremists” and “insurgents”, expressing concerns that “Right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize veterans in order to boost their violent capacities.”
How much longer will it be before members of Tea Parties are called “paid killers”?
Hasn’t that already happened? Such a description was more than quite heavily inferred by multiple “progressive” politicians and virtually every member of the “progressive” Party Pravda after a nut job who was working solo shot Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Dee “Gabby” Giffords on January 8, 2011.
How soon will members of the “progressive” Democratic Party say that Tea Party members are “not truly looking for reform”?
David Axlerod, obama’s 2012 re-election campaign chief, claimed that the Tea Party “reign of terror” blocked immigration reform. Tea Party efforts to stop “progressive” Democrats from cramming unwanted “healthcare reform” down America’s throat are viewed by “progressives” and their media spokes-tools as “not truly looking for reform”.
How much longer will it take for the United States to become a country where expressing dissent can lead directly to arrest and torture?
According to former FBI agent Larry Grathwohl, Bill Ayers’ Weather Underground Central Committee meant to cause the collapse of the United States government. Ayers and his group would deal with resistant Americans by “establishing re-education centers in the south-west”. Those who refused to convert to Communism, would be “eliminated”. As in: concentration camps would be used to kill 25 million Americans.
Politico’s Ben Smith reported: “In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district’s influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn”.
The Tea Party movement began as a peaceful protest against big government, reckless government spending, high taxes and oppressive regulations. The Tea Party’s Contract From America expressed principles held by its members. The most basic being that “Our moral, political, and economic liberties are inherent, not granted by our government.”
The principles of the Tea Party were clearly expressed in the Contract:
Protect the Constitution, reject Cap & Trade, demand a balanced budget, enact fundamental tax reform, restore fiscal responsibility and Constitutionally limited government in Washington DC, end runaway government spending, defund, repeal and replace government-run health care, pass an ‘all-of-the-above’ energy policy, stop the pork, and stop the tax hikes.
That sounds like people who are truly looking for reform. Just not the type of reform being insisted upon by members of the institutionalized “progressive” left.
Only those dedicated to the overthrow of the United States government would consider a stand for protecting the Constitution, rejecting the UN backed Cap and Trade agenda, demanding a balanced budget, et al “extreme” in their views.
The similarities between what’s happening now in Syria and plans envisioned for America by the institutionalized “progressive” left are both shocking and real. Why are those similarities being concealed by America’s fabled Fourth Estate? The only logical conclusion is that the views held by the “mainstream media” are sympathetic to those of the institutionalized “progressive” left. They are on the same team.
If violence does break out in the United States, it will be due to a harsh government crackdown leading to peaceful protestors having to take up arms in self-defense. God Bless the genius of America’s Founders and their insightful, forward thinking ratification of the Second Amendment. For they knew first hand that of which Tyrants are made.
To all who read this, please share with your pastor, priest, or minister. They need to see this and understand their rights to speak as well as our rights to hear.
To all members of Clergy in America,
The moral, ethical, and societal situation in our nation today is dire to say the least. An out of control government that does not respond to the wishes of We the People is taking control of every aspect of our lives and implementing a dictatorial oligarchy. Freedom of speech/expression is all but gone unless that speech/expression espouses everything Godless, evil, and despicable.
What I am writing may or may not apply to you. If you are not one of the ones I write about don’t take offense but rather accept my thanks for standing for freedom and Christian values against an increasingly tyrannical government. If this does apply to you please take it to heart and think about what your position in society is, and how you are carrying out your calling from God. In writing this I am doing my best to fulfill my calling, my commission from God.
I find it disconcerting that members of the clergy are either on board with this governmental abuse of power or afraid to speak out against it. I don’t know where each of you stand on issues of government tyranny and the restrictions on preaching true biblical tenets but I do know too many either agree with what the government is doing or have been intimidated into silence on the most important issues facing America today.
I see history repeating itself in horrendous terms. I was born shortly after World War II and clearly remember the situation that led to the Holocaust. When Hitler took over in Germany there were somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,000 churches in that nation. When he started his pogrom against the Jews there were only 84 pastors who stood up to oppose what he was doing. Most of those 84 were executed outright and others died in concentration camps.
Those who stood for the Bible and the values of God were martyred for their beliefs. Sadly, almost all of those who should have led the charge against Hitler’s tyranny sat on the sidelines to save their own skins and denied their calling for their own safety. This is not God’s idea of a shepherd, at least not to my understanding.
I see this happening again, in America today. I wonder why the leaders of the Christian community are silent. Pastors John Hagee of San Antonio and Robert Jeffress of Dallas are a couple of the more outspoken critics of what is happening but I know of very few others who are standing for true Christianity. It seems very few other clergy members have the courage to defy the perversion of the 1st Amendment and are willing to exercise the most important freedom guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America. I realize I only attend one church but I see and have contact with thousands of people through the internet and my impression is that I am right on the button with my comments.
I know that there are several reasons why pastors won’t speak out. I have heard it said that if they speak out against government overreach and truly preach on the more controversial biblical principles, such as that against homosexuality or pre-marital sexual activity, that people will leave because they don’t want to hear that message. The churches could collapse from lack of donations so they have to be careful what they say from the pulpit in order to keep the attendance and money flow coming. If this is the reason a pastor won’t speak out my sadness deepens. Some fear the possibility of “hate speech” charges being brought if they speak out against immorality. I have also heard it said that they can’t preach certain things because of the “separation of church and state”. If this last point is your concern, let me educate you a bit.
This quaint little phrase is not in the Constitution. The 1st Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…..”. It says freedom of RELIGION, not freedom of WORSHIP as has been the latest propaganda coming from the White house and Obama’s minions. The term separation of church and state came from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptist Association in 1802. The state government of Connecticut was trying to establish a denominational control over their state, trying to establish a Church of England style worship, and make it mandatory. The Danbury Baptist group asked Jefferson for help and he told them, in a two page letter, that no government entity can establish such a rule due to the separation of church and state. In 1947 Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black turned 8 words from that two page letter into a decision that totally perverted the meaning of the 1st Amendment. Freedom OF religion suddenly became freedom FROM religion, well freedom from public Christianity anyway.
The government and the courts have turned this perversion into a “no public expression of Christianity” edict. This position doesn’t carry over to Islam, atheism, or any of the many cults in existence today. Atheism has been acknowledged as a religion by the courts but only Christianity is held to the standards of no public displays of faith. When Christians see the clergy accepting this government position and doing nothing they assume the government and the courts are correct because they don’t know what the Constitution says. That Americans have no clue what their founding document says is sad enough in itself. The fact that their church leaders have no better understanding is even worse.
I am saddened when the activism I see from clergy is that of calling for government control of everything. “Ministers” and priests are out in the public eye decrying our freedom and demanding that the government give what doesn’t belong to them to those who refuse to help themselves. Jesus himself said that the man who does not work should not eat. These same clergy members preach hate from the pulpit but are excused because their message is politically correct, and against Christianity. Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton all stand out in public preaching hate, racism, divisiveness, and dependence on government. They need to be countered by true men and women of God who will preach the true message of the Bible, not the message of some pseudo-god they worship.
Our nation is going down the sewer of Godlessness and our clergy are allowing it to happen. Most of the members of your congregation are not going to be as outspoken and forward as I am. Most of them probably know very little, if anything, about their freedom or their heritage. They look to you not only for spiritual guidance but also for the courage to get out in the community and be seen, to stand up for their rights and the freedom given to all of us by Almighty God. It is up to you to teach them about the Christian heritage of our nation, and to be proud of that heritage instead of hiding it in the closet.
Freedom doesn’t come from government or from a document. The Declaration of Independence says; “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.” Our founding fathers recognized God as our creator, our benefactor, and our ultimate judge. If we continue to turn our backs on God, our founding documents, and our responsibilities as American citizens we will soon find ourselves living under a brutal dictatorship that will not allow any public Christian worship at all.
It is your responsibility as leaders appointed by God Himself to stand up for the Christian heritage of the nation He designed with His own hand. We the People, Christian and non-Christian, need for you to take on the tough part of your commission from God and lead us back to the promised land, a proudly Christian America.
I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.
Last week, Misfit Politics posted a video tribute to honor the passing of Andrew Breitbart. In it, Brandon Morse said that, for the first time ever conservatism is going on the offense… and he couldn’t be more right. Over the last few years we’ve learned a few things and gotten organized. All you have to do now is talk to a few conservatives or libertarians and you can feel the energy coming from them.
The problem is, as conservatives we are often put in the position of defending the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the ideas of our Founding Fathers. Any time you are defending your position you aren’t gaining ground.
“About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction cannot lay any claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.”
Calvin Coolidge – July 5, 1926
There you go – the next time some fool starts attacking our principles or the Founders it’s time to go to on offense. Ask this person, “Ok, what exactly about our principles is outdated – are all men not created equal?” This person will try to redirect the conversation from this question because – more than likely – he was initially just repeating something some campaign talking point or something his college professor told him. But don’t let him off the hook – remember, you’re on offense here. Demand an answer to that question. Then move on to the others. Do we not all have equal rights? Are the people not the source of political power?
Coolidge nailed it in this quote – there is no moving beyond these three principles that make up the foundation of our country. Everything that progressives want to do moves us away from one of these principles in some way. We must force them to defend this ground if we want to move the debate in a positive direction.
Here’s one example of how it works: progressives want to take property away from some people in order to give it to others who progressives feel are more deserving. As President Obama would say, “At a certain point, you’ve made enough money.” This is where you go on offense. Ok, at exactly what point in the income scale do you forfeit your property rights? So we don’t have equal rights to keep property we’ve earned? Who will be taking these rights away? I thought our rights came from God. And on and on.
This is ground that the progressives simply cannot defend. Remember – as long as they are on defense they cannot gain ground.
If you are a person who loves freedom, it’s time to get to work.. and it’s time to go on offense. Liberty is not for those who are willing to sit back and allow others to make decisions for them. Liberty is earned by people who are willing to be eternally vigilant in its defense.
On that same day in 1926, Calvin Coolidge described the type of people we need to be if we want to preserve our freedom:
“The American Revolution represented the informed and mature convictions of a great mass of independent, liberty-loving, God-fearing people who knew their rights, and possessed the courage to dare to maintain them.”
For decades now many conservatives – myself included – have had the option of paying lip service to how much they love their rights and their liberty without consequence. Those days are over. Our rights and our liberty are currently under a direct assault. The time has come to make a decision – do you have the courage to maintain them?
In two previous articles we looked at the way the media is brainwashing American citizens into accepting tyranny and what can be done to stop the trend. Ben Kinchlow wrote a very interesting and on target article talking about the media and their methods of subjugating We the People using brainwashing techniques.
We don’t have to continue down this road of apathy and acceptance that is taking us to tyranny, poverty, and slavery. We can stand up and take our country back but it will require courage on our part. It takes courage to stand up for freedom but what is courage?
The 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence showed a great deal of courage. If the colonies had lost the war they would have all been rounded up and executed. They knew the chance they were taking by putting their names on that document; it was there for the entire world to see. There was no hiding, no way to excuse what they had done, no turning back once they had signed. They knew what they were doing and that their lives were in the balance. These men showed just as much courage as those who faced the muskets, bayonets, and cannons of the British army. Our founding fathers had the courage of their convictions. They knew what freedom meant and they knew what it would take to have that freedom. They pledged “their lives, their fortunes, and their Sacred Honor” to the cause of freedom, not only for themselves but for generations to come.
Courage isn’t just facing death on the battlefield. Courage is also standing in the face of ridicule and derision. Courage is standing for a cause when there is seemingly so much opposition and so little support. Courage is standing in the face of hopeless defeat and saying; “Not here, not now, not on my watch”. Courage is being a leader, not sitting back where it is “safe”. Our founding fathers showed courage. Most of them never stepped foot on a battlefield yet showed the same courage as those who fought throughout the Revolutionary War, and in subsequent wars.
Today we face a tyranny similar to that of King George III. We face a Congress and an occupant of the White House, King Barack I, who ignore the very document these men so courageously gave to us, The Constitution of the United States of America. We face a media apparatus complicit in the denial of our basic freedoms. It is up to We the People to rectify the media and politician problem with knowledge and courage.
Seeing the problem is a key component, but knowledge without action is useless. If fear of the future and the acquiescence to tyranny is acceptable, you will never know a better life, only a decaying future fraught with tyranny, poverty, and slavery. When enough people have the moral strength and courage to break from the template and refuse to accept what is happening to us we will win. On that day we will see victory over those who are slipping our freedom out from under our very feet.
John Dummett and Tim Cox , both mentioned in the previous article, are two of the leaders out there trying to make a difference. One is running for office, the other is recruiting grassroots people to run for Congress, and people to help them. John is ignored by the media while taking on Barack Obama’s eligibility, but still he continues in his quest for the truth. Restoring the Constitution and the freedom it affords is his number one goal. Where does your favorite mainstream presidential candidate stand on this issue?
There are others trying to save this republic. Some run for office, others do campaign and organizing work in their communities, many more make calls for support of candidates, some give financial support, and all of us can vote for freedom or accept tyranny. We have good people at the grassroots level within the Republican Party trying to regain control for We the People. The leaders are out there. They need the support of those of us who profess to want a real alternative. Here is that alternative. You can pick up the gauntlet and earn your freedom or you can sit back and accept less and less until you accept tyranny, poverty, and slavery.
Will you be part of a future of freedom or will you sit back and accept the inevitable future being painted by the media and their political allies? Will you accept the life afforded by a dictator who promises you everything but delivers only what HE decides you need; or will you take a stand for a future of freedom, self-determination, personal responsibility, and prosperity?
The Constitution offers opportunity for those who will have it. The media, along with Democrat and Republican establishment political machines, offer a mediocre promise that will never be kept. You can stand for freedom now or bow to tyrants later. If you can’t see that by now I don’t know what else to tell you. We can no longer buy into nor participate in the hype. We cannot compromise the Constitution, and the future of freedom, by voting for the lesser of two evils.
At this time I am hard at work from within the Republican Party, trying to help those who would return the party to We the People. It can be done but it will take a commitment from people who have the courage to step outside the box and stand up for freedom. In this case it truly “takes a village”. Will you meekly vote, out of fear, for what the establishment offers you or will you stand for true freedom from elitist tyranny? Are you willing to be a part of the village that restores our nation to the vision of our founding fathers? Do you have the courage to stand in the face of ridicule, threats, and mockery to save the future of your nation? Will you step outside the box and support a dark horse or will you submit to the party establishment, accept their offer of “this or else”, and continue on a course towards slavery and tyranny?
If you wait to act until you don’t have any other choice you have already lost, our republic will be lost. Waiting until we are forced to fight for our lives is not courage, it is animal survival. A cornered animal isn’t a brave animal, it is a desperate one. Being cornered and desperate isn’t the way to fight this battle. The final door to the trap won’t shut until we are all the way in. You don’t have to continue walking into the trap; you can stop at the door and say NO!!! John Dummett and Tim Cox are two men who offer us a real alternative. Will you take them up on their offer or will you continue into tyranny, poverty, and slavery?
I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.
March 10, 2012
In case you missed it, on Tuesday night after Rick Santorum finished speaking Markos Moultisas sent out a series of tweets that seemed like they were designed to prove that he understands absolutely nothing about our Constitution. It was almost surreal.
After being called out for being completely misinformed about perhaps the single most important idea involved in the founding of this country – that we all have equal and God-given rights – Markos dug the whole deeper by tweeting this nugget of brilliance:
Karl over at Hotair.com has already done a pretty good job of tearing apart the idiocy of these comments so I won’t cover the same ground. (Mike at the Political Operative does a nice job as well.) However, there was one point Karl didn’t point out that is worth noting.
Markos is so confused here that the evidence he uses to support his original tweet – the “We the people” phrase – is actually one of the strongest arguments against his claim.
The short version of the argument is this: the phrase “We the People” is an acknowledgement that the Founders believed that – for a government to be legitimate – it has to be established or consented to by the people. That belief comes from the idea that all men are endowed by God with equal rights. The fact that the founders begin the Constitution with the phrase “We the People” actually indicates their belief that our rights come from God – not the government.
Now for the longer version.
In the Preamble, when the Founders used the phrase “We the People of the United States […] do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” they certainly weren’t saying that the government is the grantor of rights – as Markos claims. If the Founders believed that, the Constitution would have started with something along the lines of, “The King of the United States hereby decrees that the following document is law…”
The fact that they started with the phrase – We the People – actually tells us a lot. For one thing, it tells us that this country wasn’t founded on the idea that rights were granted by government. To find out how, let’s start at the beginning.
We know from the Declaration of Independence that the Founders believed that all men are endowed by their Creator with equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
With that in mind, if two people on a deserted island had to create a government – how would they decide who would rule over the other? They are both equals, so one is not naturally superior to the other. They both have a right to liberty, so one person couldn’t legitimately impose a government on the 2nd person because that would violate his right to liberty.
If all men are created equal, then the only legitimate way to create a government is for the people who will be governed to agree to it. This is where we get the phrase in the Declaration of Independence:
“…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
This means that political sovereignty doesn’t come from a king, a Congress, or any government. The only true source of political authority is the people themselves.
So when the Founders start with the phrase “We the People” they are basically saying, “Hey the power of this government is legitimate because this Constitution was written and approved by the people.” And again, this entire idea is based on the belief that all men are created with equal rights.
The lesson here – Markos is very, very wrong and very misguided. Not exactly breaking news, but important nonetheless.
As a final note that I can’t resist adding, if you take two seconds to look through the Bill of Rights you’ll see even more evidence that the Founders did not believe that the government granted rights. Throughout the Bill of Rights the text refers to protecting rights that already exist. For example, the 2nd Amendment states:
“[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Note that it doesn’t say, “This Constitution grants the people a right to keep and bear arms.” The wording hear is clear that a right to bear arms existed before the creation of the government and that this amendment intended to protect that right.
It’s not surprising to find out that progressives believe that the government is the source of our rights and should have total authority over the people. But it is simply mind-boggling to learn that they are foolish enough to believe that those ideas were the foundation for the United States Constitution.
“[T]he end of law is, not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.”
John Locke, The Second Treatise of Government
The purpose of making laws isn’t to prevent people from doing something, it’s to maximize their freedom. The proper role of government is to protect our God-given rights** – so the laws passed by governments should make our rights more secure.
As counter-intuitive as it is, this means that when the government passes a law – that law should actually make you more free – not less. Unfortunately, few if any of our current politicians understand this concept at all. Think about how many of our recent laws prohibit us from making our own choices. We now have laws that dictate what we must teach in schools and what we must feed our children while they’re at school. We also have laws that ban one product after another. None of this makes us more free.
So how can a law make people more free? Simple. When a government makes a law prohibiting theft, that makes everyone more free. Since a person knows that no one is allowed to steal his possessions, he doesn’t have to spend all of his time at home trying to protect his property from the rest of society. That gives him the freedom to leave his house and go into town to get a job, start a business, or whatever else he wants to do. This law against theft allows him to make the most of his liberty.
The value of understanding the true purpose behind making laws – and forcing our politicians to understand it – is incalculable. It is the difference between living in a society that constantly tries to control our behavior and one that helps us make the most out of the greatest gift on earth – Liberty.
**they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, among these are Life Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.– That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…
Wednesday evening Obama spoke during an Iftar Dinner at the White House celebrating Ramadan. Now some of you may know what the Ramadan is, but there might be a few that don’t know what it is. Ramadan is the ninth month of the Islamic calendar, which lasts 29 or 30 days.
It is the Islamic month of fasting, in which participating Muslims refrain from eating, drinking and sexual intimacy with their partners during daylight hours and is intended to teach Muslims about patience, spirituality, humility and submissiveness to Allah.
During his speech he made a comment that I would call frightening. “Like so many faiths, Islam has always been part of our American family, and Muslim Americans have long contributed to the strength and character of our country, in all walks of life.”
Really? I mean did he just say that? Is he so ignorant of the American history? In my last article I proved that America was founded on Christian Values. So, where does Islam fit in, Obama? Those weren’t Muslims present when the Pilgrims first landed? There was not anyone signing the Declaration of Independence, practicing the Islamic faith, and no Muslims signed it.
Were there any Muslims fighting for our freedom from England? There is no mention of any in the history books that tell the history of how America came about. So, Obama I can say without a doubt that not only are you not eligible to be the president of the greatest nation on Earth because your father is Kenyan, but a sitting president or a candidate for president should at least know the history of the United States.
Besides Obama “praising” Islam, where are the Atheist on this? They attack Christians because we have faith in God and Jesus Christ – whom will deliver us from evil, as long as we do God’s will.
Matthew 6:9-13 Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done On earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, As we forgive our debtors. And do not lead us into temptation, But deliver us from the evil one. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen
Muslim activists in the West have been using the tactic of claiming that they worship the same god as the Christians in order to gain legitimacy and acceptance. One does not have to look very far to see the “God” Muslims serve is not like the one true God I serve.
14 centuries ago Mohammed started preaching his new religion in Mecca he was conciliatory and appeasing to Christians. He told them: “We believe in What has been sent down to us and sent down to you, our God is the same as your God.” Surah 29:46. But later, in Medina, after Mohammed gained strength, Allah then tells him to “Fight those who believe not in God nor the last day. Nor acknowledge the religion of truth (Islam), (even if they are) of the people of the Book, until they pay Jizya (tribute tax) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued“. Surah 9:29
Yes, under the Old Testament law God was cruel with the people – but we are not supposed to live under the Old Testament laws now. Ever since Jesus Christ died on the cross for all of our sins we are to live under the New Testament laws. But nowhere in the Qu’ran do you see Allah making changes for believers to live by.
Atheist activist are upset and trying to remove everything related to the one true God, but have been quiet about Muslims trying to implement Islamic religion into the United States. At least Christianity is a peaceful religion unlike Islam.
The website Bare Naked Islam had an article about Islam Billboards going up along the New Jersey Turnpike. While most billboards you drive by on the New Jersey Turnpike advertise things like hotels or cars, the billboards getting attention recently advertise a certain religion and are stirring up controversy. The reason I do not like this billboard is the fact that they used the American Flag underneath the word Islam – it is just not right. The only part of American History that Islam is part of, that most Americans will remember is Sept. 11, 2001.
Image provided by BareNakedIslam
MyFoxNY.com notes in an article about these billboards that drivers on the turnpike aren’t the only ones who will see these billboards. Similar ads are going up on highways in dozens of other states. One thing is for sure Islam is NOT nor was it EVER a part of the history of the United States. Obama, I think instead of going on vacation in a week or two – should stay home and study about the history of America! Folks please remember all these blunders that Obama has had in the past and is still having them.
I truly live by my twitter profile: I’m the Anti-BIG-Government, Gun-slinging, God-Loving, Bible-Toting, Conservative, Christian,YOUR LIBERAL-MOMMA warned you about! LIBTARDS STAY AWAY! We learned what Vice President Biden thinks about the Tea Party Republicans.
At a meeting with House Democrats on Monday, Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Pa., reportedly told Biden that “the Tea Party acted like terrorists in threatening to blow up the economy.” The phrase was allegedly used several times. Several sources told website Politico that the Vice President responded, “they have acted like terrorists.”
So now I am a “Christian, Conservative, Tea Party Supporting, Terrorist?” That is fine if you want to include me into a group such as the Tea Party – I am “Taxed Enough Already.” But I wonder what organization I am linked too, since I am a Christian, and a Conservative and a Tea Party Supporter. I am three for three at being one of this administration’s worst nightmares. They have awakened We The People and We are not racist – not violent – We are however just no longer silent.
Some would like you to believe that this nation’s founding fathers weren’t particularly religious men and were especially not Christian. America was founded on Christian values, by many who were of the Christian religion. Of The 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, most of these signers were Christian. When one considers the backgrounds of these men, it becomes obvious the truth about the religious roots of our founding fathers. I’m not going to look into the backgrounds of all these men but I will a few of them.
Witherspoon, John (1723-1794), was an ordained minister of the Gospel. He published several books of Gospel sermons and played major roles in two American editions of the Bible, including one from 1791 that is considered America’s first family Bible.
Charles Thomson(1729-1824), was the Secretary of Congress, and he and John Hancock were the only two to sign the first draft of the Declaration of Independence. Thomson is another founder responsible for an American edition of the Bible. That Bible called – Thomson’s Bible – was the first translation of the Greek Septuagint into English. It took Thomson 25 years to complete his translation, but even today that work is still considered one of the more scholarly American translations of the Bible.
Benjamin Rush (1746-1813), Many of the founding fathers rated Benjamin Rush right along side George Washington and Benjamin Franklin. He started America’s first Bible society, the Bible society of Philadelphia. Dr. Rush pointed out that with a Bible, every individual could discover how to have a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ; secondly he argued that if every one owned a Bible – and would study and obey it – that all of our social problems including crime, slavery, etc., would diminish.
Charles Carroll (1737-1832), died in 1832 at the age of 95, the last of the 56 signers. On his 89th birthday he declared, On the mercy of my Redeemer I rely for salvation, and on his merits; not on the works I have done in obedience to his precepts. Carroll also personally funded a Christian house of worship.
Richard Stockton (1730-1781), captured by the British and later released, a dying Richard Stockton penned his last will and testament to his children, which became a living testimony to his faith in God. He extolled the greatness of God and his divinity and the completeness of the redemption purchased by Jesus Christ. He encouraged his children to a habitual virtuous life, living by faith. He charged his children to exhibit the fear of God, which he viewed as the beginning of wisdom, and that all occasions of vice and immorality is injurious either immediately or consequently – even in this life.
Francis Hopkinson (1737-1791), was a church music director, a choir leader, and editor of one of the first hymnals printed in America. He set all 150 psalms to music.
John Hancock (1737-1793), whose large signature on the Declaration of Independence is now a byword for fidelity, loyalty, courage and commitment. Hancock served as a president of congress during the Revolution and later as governor of Massachusetts. As governor on October 15, 1791, Hancock issued a proclamation for prayer asking especially that universal happiness may be established in the world; and that all may bow to the scepter of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the whole world be filled with his glory. Hancock also issued other proclamations to honor God.
Samuel Adams (1722 – 1803), has been called the father of the American Revolution. As governor of Massachusetts, he also issued strong proclamations one of which closed with a request to pray that the peaceful and glorious reign of our divine redeemer may be known and enjoyed throughout the whole family of mankind. Adams often repeated such request as in 1797 which asked that the people pray for speedily bringing on that holy and happy period when the kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ may be everywhere established and all the people willingly bow to the scepter of him who is the Prince of Peace.
George Washington (1732-1799), though not one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence was the military commander and chief during the Revolutionary war. When Great Britain signed the peace treaty ending the Revolutionary war General Washington immediately resigned his commission to return to private life. He then sent a letter to the governors of the 13 states informing them of his resignation closing the letter with a prayer for the states and governors.
“I now make it my earnest prayer that God would have you and the state over which you preside in his holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to the government to entertain a brotherly affection and a love for one another, for their fellow citizens of the United States at large and particularly for their brethren who have served in the field, and finally that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy and to demean ourselves with that character, humility, and peaceful temper of the mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion without an humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation.”
In closing I want to say this country is in trouble, financially, and with the economy like it is, our “leader” is not a leader of anything – we need to pray for our country. He has proven that beyond a doubt, that not everyone is cut out to be the leader of the greatest nation of this entire world. We need to carefully study who our next president will be. Because if we end up with Obama, or one just like Obama we will be done.
Source: An article from “The Good News” magazine titled – The Religious Roots of America’s Founding Fathers – article by Jerold Aust
This week has been full of self-interested politicians .. being self-interested. Christine O’Donnell pointed out the elitistm with her “ruling class” comments on Friday .. then .. the elitists just went and proved her point.
Lisa Murkowski has announced that she will be a write-in candidate against the Joe Miller who defeated her in the primary. Her motives are those of self-interest. She believes she is entitled to that Senate seat – damn the will of the people. She lost in a primary. The people have spoken, but she’s not listening.
Then again, when we look at how Mike Castle has handled losing to Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, it becomes obvious that those that associate themselves so closely with established politics are all self-interested elitists. Castle is refusing to endorse the candidate that defeated him in the primary and took calls from the White House shortly after losing. Will he pull a Charlie Crist and come back as an independent to split the Conservative vote? Would fit his lack of character perfectly.
As the piece-de-resistance, we get our President deciding that the Declaration of Independence has it wrong. By deciding to omit “Creator” from the a reciting of the document, is he saying that the rights are endowed to us .. by him, the Obarrassment? The striking omission is in this video around the 22:30 mark.
“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, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”
Ladies and gentlemen, liberty is under attack – an attack that the Obama Administration has put into overdrive. It did not begin with Obama, but hopefully – come November – we can turn it around and alter our government to get it back in tune with our “unalienable Rights.” I am going to list several of these attacks, many of which are carefully disguised in Cass Sunstein’s favorite term, “Nudges.”
First lets take a look through some Executive Orders so we can analyze it straight from the top. One thing you’ll notice is that Big Government is key. Anytime he wants an area to be taken over by Big Government he forms a committee or new government office.
These are just a few of the agencies and commitees Obama has created with more to come. What you can clearly see here is the pattern of the Obama’s Administration, to take over every aspect of American life from your city to your gender.
Executive Order–President’s Council on Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to recognize that good nutrition goes hand in hand with fitness and sports participation, Executive Order 13265 of June 6, 2002, is hereby amended as follows:
Section 1. The title is revised to read as follows: “President’s Council on Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition.”
Sec. 2. Sections 1 through 5 are revised to read as follows:
“Section 1. Purpose. The Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary), in carrying out the Secretary’s responsibilities for public health and human services, shall develop and coordinate a national program to enhance physical activity, fitness, sports participation, and good nutrition. Through this program, the Secretary shall, in consultation with the Secretaries of Agriculture and Education, seek to:
(a) expand national interest in and awareness of the benefits of regular physical activity, fitness, sports participation, and good nutrition;
(b) stimulate and enhance coordination of programs within and among the private and public sectors that promote physical activity, fitness, sports participation, and good nutrition;
(c) expand availability of quality information and guidance regarding physical activity, fitness, sports participation, and good nutrition; and
(d) target all Americans, with particular emphasis on children and adolescents, as well as populations or communities in which specific risks or disparities in participation in, access to, or knowledge about the benefits of physical activity, fitness, sports participation, and good nutrition have been identified.
In implementing this order, the Secretary shall be guided by the science-based Federal Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. Additionally, the Secretary shall undertake nutrition related activities under this order in coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture.
Sec. 2. The President’s Council on Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition. (a) There is hereby established the President’s Council on Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition (Council).
(b) The Council shall be composed of up to 25 members appointed by the President. Members shall serve for a term of 2 years, shall be eligible for reappointment, and may continue to serve after the expiration of their terms until the appointment of a successor. The President may designate one or more members as Chair or Vice Chair.
Sec. 3. Functions of the Council. (a) The Council shall advise the President, through the Secretary, concerning progress made in carrying out the provisions of this order and shall recommend to the President, through the Secretary, actions to accelerate progress.
(b) The Council shall advise the Secretary on ways to promote regular physical activity, fitness, sports participation, and good nutrition. Recommendations may address, but are not necessarily limited to, public awareness campaigns; Federal, State, and local physical activity; fitness, sports participation, and nutrition initiatives; and partnership opportunities between public- and private-sector health-promotion entities.
(c) The Council shall function as a liaison to relevant State, local, and private entities in order to advise the Secretary regarding opportunities to extend and improve physical activity, fitness, sports, and nutrition programs and services at the local, State, and national levels.
(d) The Council shall monitor the need to enhance programs and educational and promotional materials sponsored, overseen, or disseminated by the Council, and shall advise the Secretary as necessary concerning such need.
In performing its functions, the Council shall take into account the Federal Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans.
Your fat, lazy, and too stupid to realize it, therefore Obama has formed this Council to rescue and make sure your choices are restricted to healthy choices. Will it be through propaganda campaigns, or selective taxes perhaps, maybe even the banning of certain foods because you little people just can’t control yourself. How do you think they will “target” all Americans for getting active in sports?
Executive Order– Establishing the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 4001 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Establishment. There is established within the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council (Council).
Sec. 3. Purposes and Duties. The Council shall:
(a) provide coordination and leadership at the Federal level, and among all executive departments and agencies, with respect to prevention, wellness, and health promotion practices, the public health system, and integrative health care in the United States;
(b) develop, after obtaining input from relevant stakeholders, a national prevention, health promotion, public health, and integrative health-care strategy that incorporates the most effective and achievable means of improving the health status of Americans and reducing the incidence of preventable illness and disability in the United States, as further described in section 5 of this order;
(c) provide recommendations to the President and the Congress concerning the most pressing health issues confronting the United States and changes in Federal policy to achieve national wellness, health promotion, and public health goals, including the reduction of tobacco use, sedentary behavior, and poor nutrition;
(d) consider and propose evidence-based models, policies, and innovative approaches for the promotion of transformative models of prevention, integrative health, and public health on individual and community levels across the United States;
(e) establish processes for continual public input, including input from State, regional, and local leadership communities and other relevant stakeholders, including Indian tribes and tribal organizations;
(f) submit the reports required by section 6 of this order; and
(g) carry out such other activities as are determined appropriate by the President.
Sec. 4. Advisory Group.
(a) There is established within the Department of Health and Human Services an Advisory Group on Prevention, Health Promotion, and Integrative and Public Health (Advisory Group), which shall report to the Chair of the Council.
(b) The Advisory Group shall be composed of not more than 25 members or representatives from outside the Federal Government appointed by the President and shall include a diverse group of licensed health professionals, including integrative health practitioners who are representative of or have expertise in:
(1) worksite health promotion;
(2) community services, including community health centers;
(3) preventive medicine;
(4) health coaching;
(5) public health education;
(6) geriatrics; and
(7) rehabilitation medicine.
(c) The Advisory Group shall develop policy and program recommendations and advise the Council on lifestyle-based chronic disease prevention and management, integrative health care practices, and health promotion.
Sec. 5. National Prevention and Health Promotion Strategy. Not later than March 23, 2011, the Chair, in consultation with the Council, shall develop and make public a national prevention, health promotion, and public health strategy (national strategy), and shall review and revise it periodically. The national strategy shall:
(a) set specific goals and objectives for improving the health of the United States through federally supported prevention, health promotion, and public health programs, consistent with ongoing goal setting efforts conducted by specific agencies;
(b) establish specific and measurable actions and timelines to carry out the strategy, and determine accountability for meeting those timelines, within and across Federal departments and agencies; and
(c) make recommendations to improve Federal efforts relating to prevention, health promotion, public health, and integrative health-care practices to ensure that Federal efforts are consistent with available standards and evidence.
Sec. 6. Reports. Not later than July 1, 2010, and annually thereafter until January 1, 2015, the Council shall submit to the President and the relevant committees of the Congress, a report that:
(a) describes the activities and efforts on prevention, health promotion, and public health and activities to develop the national strategy conducted by the Council during the period for which the report is prepared;
(b) describes the national progress in meeting specific prevention, health promotion, and public health goals defined in the national strategy and further describes corrective actions recommended by the Council and actions taken by relevant agencies and organizations to meet these goals;
(c) contains a list of national priorities on health promotion and disease prevention to address lifestyle behavior modification (including smoking cessation, proper nutrition, appropriate exercise, mental health, behavioral health, substance-use disorder, and domestic violence screenings) and the prevention measures for the five leading disease killers in the United States;
(d) contains specific science-based initiatives to achieve the measurable goals of the Healthy People 2020 program of the Department of Health and Human Services regarding nutrition, exercise, and smoking cessation, and targeting the five leading disease killers in the United States;
(e) contains specific plans for consolidating Federal health programs and centers that exist to promote healthy behavior and reduce disease risk (including eliminating programs and offices determined to be ineffective in meeting the priority goals of the Healthy People 2020 program of the Department of Health and Human Services);
(f) contains specific plans to ensure that all Federal health-care programs are fully coordinated with science-based prevention recommendations by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and
(g) contains specific plans to ensure that all prevention programs outside the Department of Health and Human Services are based on the science-based guidelines developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under subsection (d) of this section.
So here you have an Advisory Group looking for ways to, not only make you fat, lazy Americans exercise and eat right, but also stop killing yourselves. Your lifestyle is self destructive so we are going to come up with ways to make you stop smoking, make you stop giving yourselves heart attacks (attack on hamburgers? salt? trans fat? any number of foods). The Nanny state will decide how to remove your options either through propaganda and advertising, over taxation, or outright banning.
With cigarettes the attacks have not only been over taxation and demonization, but also restricting locations where you can exercise this liberty. It’s gone so far now that New York City’s Mayor Bloomberg, according to CBS News, “Is looking at a possible smoking ban for all city parks and public beaches.” You would no longer have that liberty in those outdoor locations at all or face criminal charges.
Now some pending Bills. Do you want to serve your country in a way the Government decides? Maybe, Well if this Bill passses you don’t have a choice:
a) Obligation for Service- It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this title unless exempted under the provisions of this title.
That’s right, you will be required to serve, regardless of your wishes. That’s not freedom, it’s tyranny.
Also we have the Livable Communities Bill where instead of city & state planning locally, Washington will decide for you. From CNS News:
Republicans Blast ‘Livable Communities’ Bill As Washington-Based Central Planning for Cities and Towns
The Senate Banking Committee passed the Livable Communities Act on Tuesday, moving the bill one step closer to final passage. The bill creates $4 billion in neighborhood planning grants for “sustainable” living projects and a new federal office to oversee them.
Similar legislation in the House has been criticized by Republicans on the House Budget Committee, who charge that “the program’s aim is to impose a Washington-based, central planning model on localities across the country.”
In the Senate version, written by outgoing Chairman Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), the Livable Communities Act would designate $4 billion to aid local governments in planning high-density, walkable neighborhoods.
Premised on helping local governments to combat suburban sprawl and traffic congestion, the bill sets up two separate grant programs. One, known as Comprehensive Planning Grants, would go to cities and counties to assist them in carrying out such plans as the following:
— “(1) coordinate land use, housing, transportation, and infrastructure planning processes across jurisdictions and agencies” and
— “(3) conduct or update housing, infrastructure, transportation, energy, and environmental assessments to determine regional needs and promote sustainable development; [and]
— “… (5) implement local zoning and other code changes necessary to implement a comprehensive regional plan and promote sustainable development.”
The second grant type – Sustainability Challenge Grants – funds local efforts to:
–“(1) promote integrated transportation, housing, energy, and economic development activities carried out across policy and governmental jurisdictions;
— (2) promote sustainable and location-efficient development; and
— (3) implement projects identified in a comprehensive regional plan.”
To administer and regulate these new grants, the bill creates the Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities (OSHC) within the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
The legislation is designed to prod local communities toward high-density, public transit-oriented neighborhoods that concentrate large numbers of people into small geographic areas connected by train and bus networks.
These high-density neighborhoods would be combined with high-density commercial districts that – in theory – would reduce the need for daily driving and commuting.
In describing the Livable Communities Act, Dodd has said that “with sustainable development, our communities will cut traffic congestion; reduce greenhouse gas emissions and gasoline consumption; protect rural areas and green spaces; revitalize existing Main Streets and urban centers; and create more affordable housing.
”So what is this Bill really? An attempt for Washington to take control of local cities & towns and redesign in their Utopian green image. You will not have a say in how your city develops, that’s Washington’s job. They are going to phase out Liberties, force green options, and mass transit. You don’t need a car for yourself, here’s a train.
How about Free Speech? Still have it? That depends doesn’t it. Say you want to write a blog and express your views, sure you can do it, but not in Philadelphia unless you can afford it. Philadelphia has now decided to try and force all Blogs to purchase a $300 business license. From the Philadelphia City Paper:
For the past three years, Marilyn Bess has operated MS Philly Organic, a small, low-traffic blog that features occasional posts about green living, out of her Manayunk home. Between her blog and infrequent contributions to ehow.com, over the last few years she says she’s made about $50.
To Bess, her website is a hobby. To the city of Philadelphia, it’s a potential moneymaker, and the city wants its cut. In May, the city sent Bess a letter demanding that she pay $300, the price of a business privilege license.
She’s not alone. After dutifully reporting even the smallest profits on their tax filings this year, a number — though no one knows exactly what that number is — of Philadelphia bloggers were dispatched letters informing them that they owe $300 for a privilege license, plus taxes on any profits they made.
Even if, as with Sean Barry(Another Blogger), that profit is $11 over two years. The city wants some people to pay more in taxes than they earn. “I definitely don’t want to see people paying more in taxes and fees than what [we] earn,” says Bess.
So how do you silence Free Speech? You make it expensive. How many times has Obama attacked bloggers and talk radio? Looks like Philadelphia took the hint and found a solution.
The Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of Free Speech for companies as well as individuals. However this ruling did not sit well with Obama at all. All the ruling does is permit companies to advertise for any political candidate they choose, but Obama can’t allow that. He demonized the Supreme Court for this ruling at his State of the Union Address and has been against ever since as you can see in this Weekly Address:
He is warning of “A corporate takeover of our Democracy” yet that is not the case. First of all the United States of America is a Constitutional Meritocratic Republic, not a Democracy. Second, An increase in candidate advertising cannot cause a takeover. Does not an individual have the presence of mind to watch political ads and look into it or decide for themselves? Not in Obama’s Nanny State. On a side not though, everything Obama and the Democratic Party have planned to counter this type of “Free Speech” exempts unions from running campaign ads. Way to double standard.
Do you have Free Speech on the internet? Quite possibly not for long. Though all previous Obama Administration power grabs to seize control of the internet have failed, the Net Neutrality effort is still ongoing, even though their coalition is weakening. From Hot Air:
The coalition pushing Congress to enact Net Neutrality legislation lost one of its key players after Red State questioned its judgment in selecting political bedfellows. Gun Owners of America announced their withdrawal from Save the Internet after it became clear that the group had strong ties to MoveOn, SEIU, and ACORN, among others. STI had bragged about GOA’s membership as a way to paint their coalition as broad based:
A bipartisan coalition in favor of net neutrality has lost a key conservative supporter amid signs that the issue is becoming divisive.
The Gun Owners of America (GOA) severed ties with the net-neutrality coalition Save the Internet after a conservative blog questioned the association with liberal organizations such as ACORN and the ACLU.
The blog RedState described Save The Internet as a “neo-Marxist Robert McChesney-FreePress/Save the Internet think tank” and questioned why GOA would participate in a coalition that includes liberal groups such as the ACLU, MoveOn.Org, SEIU, CREDO and ACORN.
Why now? GOA claims that the times have changed, and that the Net Neutrality movement has changed over the last four years:
“Back in 2006 we supported net neutrality, as we had been concerned that AOL and others might continue to block pro-second amendment issues,” said Erich Pratt, communications director for GOA.
“The issue has now become one of government control of the Internet, and we are 100 percent opposed to that,” Pratt said.
Er, what? The Net Neutrality movement has never been a grassroots effort aimed solely at private enterprise. It has always aimed at government intervention and regulation of Internet access and network management. That was as true in 2006 as it is today.
Arguably, the issue is free speech, but the problem with that is that NN advocates want government-imposed neutrality on content delivery, which makes sense for a monopoly — but the Internet isn’t a monopoly. (STI still has Parents Television Council and the Christian Coalition inside the tent, at least for now, two groups not known for their opposition to government intervention in speech.) The NN argument treats the Internet as a public utility, an argument that FCC chair Julius Genachowski explicitly made this year, but it’s not, and it’s not even close. Consumers can choose between several different providers, and content handling certainly can inform those choices.
So do you want the Federal Government to regulate the internet? I do not. I want freedom to choose for myself what content I view. But the Left Wing Net Neutrality coalition marches on pushing for government control and less freedom.
How about the Right to bear arms, the 2nd Amendment? Even after the landmark case McDonald V. Chicago, The 2nd amendment continues to be under attack. Instead of dropping Chicago’s handgun ban (which never reduced crime, but encouraged it, in my opinion), Mayor Daley has chosen to repeal the ban but add many hoops to jump through before you can own a gun. From the Christian Science Monitor:
Chicago to allow handgun ownership under revised gun law
Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley is asking the City Council to enact a revised handgun ordinance in the wake of Monday’s ruling by the US Supreme Court that jeopardized the city’s 28-year-old ban on handguns.
The mayor says the revised ordinance will stand up in federal court, should it face a challenge. Early reaction from gun rights advocates is that they are relatively pleased with Chicago’s latest proposal for regulating handgun ownership within city limits, with some caveats.
The Chicago handgun ban, the last of its kind in the nation, fell into a legal danger zone this week, after the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms applies to every jurisdiction in the US. The ban now faces a review by the Seventh US Circuit Court that will test its validity in light of the high court’s decision, but legal experts, and Mayor Daley himself, expect that the ban cannot stand.
Daley wants the City Council “to move quickly to consider and enact” the redrafted ordinance, he told reporters Thursday. The council is expected to meet Friday to debate the measure and take a vote.
Gun rights advocates are “cautiously optimistic” about the proposal, says Alan Gura, a lawyer in Alexandria, Va., who was on the winning side in the latest Supreme Court case and in a 2008 case the resulted in the overturning of a handgun ban in Washington, D.C.
“This is a far more measured and careful response than what was rumored, and we appreciate that,” says Mr. Gura.
New rules of gun ownership
The new ordinance would establish a multitier process requiring gun owners to register their firearms with the Chicago Police Department, attend classroom and firing range training, and obtain both a special city permit and a state firearms identification card.
The fees associated with those requirements are not inconsequential, says Gura. The city permit, for instance, would cost $100 and would require renewal every three years. Each handgun would need to be reregistered every year at $15 each. Penalties for failing to register a firearm could cost owners up to $10,000 and jail time.
It is normal to charge fees for registering guns, says Gura. But “when fees are imposed on a recurring basis, then it becomes an annual tax on an exercise of a constitutional right,” he says. “We don’t think that’s appropriate, so that can be a sticking point with us.”
Rifle owners have long complained about Chicago’s annual registration process, which can take up to six months each year.
“It can take so long … no one can get through all the hoops,” says Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association. Mr. Pearson says he is tracking what form of the ordinance the Chicago City Council approves on Friday, to determine if it needs to be challenged.
“I’m glad we’re seeing some movement on it. We’ll have to test the constitutionality of [what they] are proposing later,” he says.
A ban on gun shops questioned
The proposed ordinance also prohibits assault weapons and gun shops. Gura considers the latter ban “extreme” and says it is no different than if the government decided it wanted to ban the sale of books it determined were not in its favor.
“To say there can be no commerce in something that is explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution is troubling,” he says.
Daley says all aspects of the ban are constitutionally sound because they focus on gun ownership in the home, which is what the high court declared to be protected by the Second Amendment. Guns are “for self-defense and self-defense only,” he added, and if people were really committed to gun safety, they would start by not owning guns.
“Although people have a constitutional right to have a handgun in their home … the best way to avoid firearm-related injuries and deaths is to not have a gun in the home in the first place,” he says.
So, you can have a gun, but we will determine what kind and only if you can afford our massive fees. Oh, you can’t afford it? Oh well, sorry no gun for you but hey, at least we gave you the opportunity, even though we forbid them to be sold here.
How about Washington D.C. where a preacher was arrested for answering a security guards question about weapons, saying yes, he had two pistols under his seat. From Johnson City Press:
Pistol-packing preacher protests arrest; DC police confiscate guns
For the rest of his life Pastor William Duncan of Caldwell Springs Baptist Church will remember the Fourth of July as the day he lost his freedom.
“I learned our freedoms can be taken away in a heartbeat,” the 64-year-old Duncan said of the ordeal he encountered in Washington, D.C., when he was arrested in front of his shocked family and forced to spend last month’s Fourth of July weekend in the city’s jails.
The nightmare for the entire Duncan Family began with a trip to the nation’s capital to celebrate Independence Day and enjoy the spectacular fireworks show on the Mall.
Duncan had been to Washington a few times in the past but his wife, Carolyn, had never been there. Accompanying them were their daughter, son-in-law and his 4-year-old granddaughter and 9-month-old grandson. Duncan’s daughter is a police officer, and her husband is a federal agent.
The family’s ordeal began when they reached the hotel’s parking garage, which is shared with a Federal Emergency Management Agency building. A security guard at the parking garage entrance asked if Duncan had any weapons. Duncan said he carried two Smith and Wesson pistols under his seat.
Unaware that his Tennessee handgun carry permit was not valid in the District of Columbia, Duncan was surprised when police were called. He was even more surprised by the belligerent attitude of the officer in charge. Surprise became shock when federal agents and a Special Weapons and Tactics team arrived. The street in front of the hotel was blocked off.
“It looked like the middle of New York City and they had just arrested Osama bin Laden,” Duncan said.
Duncan’s federal agent son-in-law attempted to help him. He identified himself and explained the family was in town to celebrate Independence Day and that Duncan was a Baptist preacher and not a terrorist.
Soon the federal officers were satisfied there was no threat and left. The hotel security people said they did not have a problem and offered to store Duncan’s guns in the hotel safe during his stay.Most of the police also seemed satisfied that Duncan was not a threat. The one exception was the officer in charge.
“You know what you have done, you will have to go to jail,” the officer told him.
At the police station, the officer grilled Duncan about the reason for carrying two big guns.
“I told them I have arthritis and two bad shoulders. If someone attacked my family there was no other way I could protect them,” Duncan said.
The officer said he did not think it was likely anyone would attack him or his family. Duncan then told them the story of the Lillelid Family, who were traveling to a Jehovah’s Witness convention in Johnson City in 1997 when the four members of the family were shot at a rest stop. Only the 2-year-old son survived the shootings and he was left orphaned and permanently disabled.
“What would happen if someone like those thugs attack me and my family? The Lord said a man who won’t protect his family is worse than an infidel,” Duncan said.
After the questioning, Duncan was given his one call to his family. He told them he was being held without bond and he hoped to see them on Monday at his court hearing.
After a weekend in jail, Duncan took comfort when a public defender assured him his case would be dropped.
Duncan was quickly released on his own recognizance. He was allowed to return home and the case was dismissed three weeks later.
His problems are not yet over. Duncan wants the case expunged from his record and his guns returned.
Constitutionaly this man committed no crime. Locally however is another matter. His Right to bear arms did not carry over from Tennessee to Washington D.C. As our Rights come from God and not Government, Washington D.C is infringing on that Right and sent this man to jail for nothing. Notice the officer’s statement. It’s not likely anyone will attack you, you don’t need guns. How can anyone ever know if and when they will be attacked? Only prevention is preparedness, which is what this Pastor was arrested for. To add insult to injury they confiscated his weapons and have not returned them as of yet.
Do you have the freedom to work where you choose and get promoted based on Merit and Character? That depends on where you work and what type of job it is. The Wall Street Journal reports:
Senior Obama administration officials concluded the federal moratorium on deepwater oil drilling would cost roughly 23,000 jobs, but went ahead with the ban because they didn’t trust the industry’s safety equipment and the government’s own inspection process, according to previously undisclosed documents.
The Obama administration decided they didn’t trust the industry, and didn’t trust themselves, so you cannot work providing oil to the United States. Instead we will buy more from our enemies and complain about it. The Government decided for you that this industry is dangerous, regardless of how necessary it may be to energy production and the economy.
We also know now that General Motors used race and sex as factors in deciding which dealerships to close according to the Inspector General. And we recently learned that the Financial Reform Bill had within it diversity hiring quotas. From CNS News:
Financial Reform Bill Passed by House Would Create ‘Office of Minority and Women Inclusion’ in Every U.S. Financial Regulatory Agency
The financial regulations package recently passed by the House of Representatives would create a new diversity overseer at each of the major federal financial regulatory agencies, including the new ones created by the legislation itself.
This new office, called the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, would take over from any existing diversity or civil rights office already working at the agencies in question.
It would also be responsible for making sure that each of the major federal financial regulators is hiring enough minorities and women, and contracting with enough minority-owned and women-owned businesses.
However, each individual diversity czar is responsible for defining exactly how many minorities, women, and minority- and women-owned businesses are satisfactory.
“[E]ach agency shall establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion that shall be responsible for all matters of the agency relating to diversity in management, employment, and business activities,” the legislation says. (The bill passed in the House on June 30; a Senate vote could occur as early as next week.)
In fact, each new diversity chief will be responsible for developing quota-like guidelines proscribing the ethnic and gender makeup of each regulator’s workforce, including upper management.
“Each Director shall develop standards for- (A) equal employment opportunity and the racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of the work-force and senior management of the agency,” it states.
These diversity offices will also be responsible for “assessing the diversity policies and practices of entities regulated by the agency.”
This means that in addition to monitoring every bank in the country, checking every financial institution in America to make sure they are not doing anything systemically risky, and trying to prevent another financial collapse, every federal financial regulator will also be counting the number of minority and female employees at banks and investment firms, big and small.
The proposed law would also mandate that federal financial regulators hire from certain types of minority- or women-only colleges and universities, advertise in minority- and women-focused publications, and partner with inner-city schools and other minority-focused organizations to hire or mentor more minorities and women.
The diversity offices will also be charged with enforcing the newly written diversity guidelines for each private sector company the regulator contracts with, meaning that they will be checking to ensure that each of the agency’s private contractors is following the agency’s diversity guidelines.
“The Director of each Office shall develop and implement standards and procedures to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the fair inclusion and utilization of minorities, women, and minority-owned and women-owned businesses in all business and activities of the agency at all levels, including in procurement, insurance, and all types of contracts,” the bill states.
This provision is significant because some of the same federal regulators who must establish these diversity offices – Treasury and Federal Reserve – make heavy use of the private sector on a regular basis. They have also relied heavily on the private financial sector in their responses to the financial crisis.
For example, the Fed’s Term Asset-Backed Lending Facility (TALF) program, which backstopped the securitization market during the height of the financial crisis, was actually run with the help of Bank of New York Mellon, an institution regulated by the New York Fed.
The TALF program, along with other Fed lending programs, had to maintain a strict level of secrecy to protect the banks using the program from irrational runs on their businesses. Because the securitization market had essentially collapsed, TALF’s customers had to remain anonymous if the government was to avoid setting an arbitrary – rather than market – price for securitized debt.
Had the markets learned which financial institutions were using Fed lending programs like TALF, they would have known which securities the Fed was taking as collateral for a particular loan amount. With such information in the public domain, the government would have essentially been fixing the price of asset-backed securities, rather than letting supply and demand set the price in the normal way.
The new diversity office at the Fed – and other financial regulators – apparently would be empowered to dig into such sensitive relationships under the guise of diversity enforcement, possibly endangering the programs and hamstringing their effectiveness.
If one of the new diversity czars thinks a financial firm is not being diverse enough, he potentially could recommend that the regulator terminate the contract(s) the regulator has with that firm.
So how does this translate? Your a white male, top of your class in accounting and economics and you can’t be hired. Maybe your a Black male and a genius, sorry no job for you, we need females. The position will go to the best candidate that fills the racial or sex based quota. It doent matter how qualified you are, it matters whether or not you are a man or a woman and what color your skin happens to be. A private firm might not meet the diversity quota, but can’t afford to hire anyone else, so what are it’s options? Lose the contract or fire and replace as many as necessary for diversity. That’s not equality.
How about the freedom to handle your own garbage? Depends on where you live now, but just might spread. Cleveland now has a special way of monitoring your garbage and how often you recycle. And Cleveland is not alone. From Cleveland.com:
High-tech carts will tell on Cleveland residents who don’t recycle … and they face $100 fine
It would be a stretch to say that Big Brother will hang out in Clevelanders’ trash cans, but the city plans to sort through curbside trash to make sure residents are recycling — and fine them $100 if they don’t.
The move is part of a high-tech collection system the city will roll out next year with new trash and recycling carts embedded with radio frequency identification chips and bar codes.
The chips will allow city workers to monitor how often residents roll carts to the curb for collection. If a chip show a recyclable cart hasn’t been brought to the curb in weeks, a trash supervisor will sort through the trash for recyclables.
Trash carts containing more than 10 percent recyclable material could lead to a $100 fine, according to Waste Collection Commissioner Ronnie Owens. Recyclables include glass, metal cans, plastic bottles, paper and cardboard.
City Council on Wednesday approved spending $2.5 million on high-tech carts for 25,000 households across the city, expanding a pilot program that began in 2007 with 15,000 households.
The expansion will continue at 25,000 households a year until nearly all of the city’s 150,000 residences are included. Existing carts might be retrofitted with the microchips.
“We’re trying to automate our system to be a more efficient operation,” Owens said. “This chip will assist us in doing our job better.”
The chip-embedded carts are just starting to catch on elsewhere. The Washington, D.C. suburb of Alexandria, Va., earlier this year announced it would issue carts to check whether people are recycling.
Some cities in England have used the high-tech trash carts for several years to weigh how much garbage people throw out. People are charged extra for exceeding allotted limits.
Your trash can will now decide if you are recycling enough or not and have you fined accordingly. You are being nudged right in your own home and monetarily punished if you do not comply.
How about the Right to Privacy? This right is being shredded. Apparently you no longer have the right to privacy of location. The Government is not wrong to track and follow anyone at anytime with or without a warrant. From Yahoo News/Time:
The Government’s New Right to Track Your Every Move With GPS
Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn’t violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway – and no reasonable expectation that the government isn’t tracking your movements.
That is the bizarre – and scary – rule that now applies in California and eight other Western states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants – with no need for a search warrant.(See a TIME photoessay on Cannabis Culture.)
It is a dangerous decision – one that, as the dissenting judges warned, could turn America into the sort of totalitarian state imagined by George Orwell. It is particularly offensive because the judges added insult to injury with some shocking class bias: the little personal privacy that still exists, the court suggested, should belong mainly to the rich.
This case began in 2007, when Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents decided to monitor Juan Pineda-Moreno, an Oregon resident who they suspected was growing marijuana. They snuck onto his property in the middle of the night and found his Jeep in his driveway, a few feet from his trailer home. Then they attached a GPS tracking device to the vehicle’s underside.
After Pineda-Moreno challenged the DEA’s actions, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled in January that it was all perfectly legal. More disturbingly, a larger group of judges on the circuit, who were subsequently asked to reconsider the ruling, decided this month to let it stand. (Pineda-Moreno has pleaded guilty conditionally to conspiracy to manufacture marijuana and manufacturing marijuana while appealing the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained with the help of GPS.)
In fact, the government violated Pineda-Moreno’s privacy rights in two different ways. For starters, the invasion of his driveway was wrong. The courts have long held that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes and in the “curtilage,” a fancy legal term for the area around the home. The government’s intrusion on property just a few feet away was clearly in this zone of privacy.
The judges veered into offensiveness when they explained why Pineda-Moreno’s driveway was not private. It was open to strangers, they said, such as delivery people and neighborhood children, who could wander across it uninvited. (See the misadventures of the CIA.)
Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who dissented from this month’s decision refusing to reconsider the case, pointed out whose homes are not open to strangers: rich people’s. The court’s ruling, he said, means that people who protect their homes with electric gates, fences and security booths have a large protected zone of privacy around their homes. People who cannot afford such barriers have to put up with the government sneaking around at night.
Judge Kozinski is a leading conservative, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, but in his dissent he came across as a raging liberal. “There’s been much talk about diversity on the bench, but there’s one kind of diversity that doesn’t exist,” he wrote. “No truly poor people are appointed as federal judges, or as state judges for that matter.” The judges in the majority, he charged, were guilty of “cultural elitism.” (Read about one man’s efforts to escape the surveillance state.)
The court went on to make a second terrible decision about privacy: that once a GPS device has been planted, the government is free to use it to track people without getting a warrant. There is a major battle under way in the federal and state courts over this issue, and the stakes are high. After all, if government agents can track people with secretly planted GPS devices virtually anytime they want, without having to go to a court for a warrant, we are one step closer to a classic police state – with technology taking on the role of the KGB or the East German Stasi.
Fortunately, other courts are coming to a different conclusion from the Ninth Circuit’s – including the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That court ruled, also this month, that tracking for an extended period of time with GPS is an invasion of privacy that requires a warrant. The issue is likely to end up in the Supreme Court.
In these highly partisan times, GPS monitoring is a subject that has both conservatives and liberals worried. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s pro-privacy ruling was unanimous – decided by judges appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. (Comment on this story.)
Plenty of liberals have objected to this kind of spying, but it is the conservative Chief Judge Kozinski who has done so most passionately. “1984 may have come a bit later than predicted, but it’s here at last,” he lamented in his dissent. And invoking Orwell’s totalitarian dystopia where privacy is essentially nonexistent, he warned: “Some day, soon, we may wake up and find we’re living in Oceania.”
So the Federal Government can,based on a whim or suspicion without any warrant, monitor where your personal location at all times with no justification necessary. Let us hope the Supreme Court overturns this one or we will be living 1984.
Court Fails to Protect Privacy of Whistleblower’s Email
Today the Eleventh Circuit issued an unfortunate amended decision in Rehberg v. Hodges. The case arose from an egregious situation in which, among other misconduct, a prosecutor used a sham grand jury subpoena to obtain the private emails of whistleblower Charles Rehberg after he brought attention to systematic mismanagement of funds at a Georgia public hospital.
The Court held that Mr. Rehberg’s privacy interest in his emails held by his ISP was not “clearly established” and therefore his claim against the prosecutors could not proceed. The Court relied on a legal doctrine called qualified immunity, which holds that lawsuits against government officials for violations of constitutional rights cannot proceed unless those rights were “clearly established” at the time. The Court declined to rule on whether individuals have a privacy interest in the content of their emails.
We’re disappointed in this decision. Not only is it wrong for Mr. Rehberg, who had his emails turned over to a prosecutor based on a sham subpoena, but it’s troubling for the millions of individuals in the Eleventh Circuit who have their email stored with ISPs. Our most sensitive and private thoughts, ideas and correspondence are contained in our emails. The Fourth Amendment requires judicial supervision (usually a warrant) before the government can access your personal papers in order to protect against just the sort of abuse that Mr. Rehberg suffered — a rogue government official seeking to get your emails from your ISP with no court oversight and then turning it over to others who seek to harm you.
While the decision is very bad news for Mr. Rehberg, the Court did take the opportunity to correct some erroneous analysis in the panel’s previous decision. The earlier decision had held that the Fourth Amendment did not apply at all once an email was received by your ISP. The Court had written that a “person also loses a reasonable expectation of privacy in emails, at least after the email is sent to and received by a third party” and that “Rehberg’s voluntary delivery of emails to third parties constituted a voluntary relinquishment of the right to privacy in that information.” This is not the law, and the incorrect statements are no longer precedent. In other words, the Court did not rule out the possibility that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in your email. That is useful and will be important to other cases moving forward, as law professor Paul Ohm, who wrote an amicus brief in the case, has noted.
However, the Court did not rule that there was privacy protection for your emails either. Rather than embracing the obvious conclusion that our constitutional protections need to be recognized for email content, the court ducked the question, claiming that email is simply too new a technology for them to decide whether the Constitution applies. With all due respect, email is far too important to the daily lives of millions of Americans for its constitutional status to be unclear. Email content must be protected by the Fourth Amendment whether stored with an ISP or not. It’s long past time that the courts recognize that the constitutional privacy protections for our “papers” still apply when they are in digital form.
So two different Circuit Courts have voted against your Right to Privacy in two different ways, both of which are a blow to freedom. Makes this scenario all the more realistic:
These are not all the attacks ongoing on our freedoms, I cannot keep up with them all, but Big Government keeps growing, which means Rights, freedoms, and liberties will shrink and be infringed. The Principles of freedom cannot coexist with a Big Progressive Government. We can only hope for a significant victory in November to turn this tide around before we lose all of our Liberties.