Ignorant Judges are Lethal to Liberty

/in /by

It seems that every week there is some new attack on Liberty.  Last month, it was the US Navy trying to remove Religious Liberty in the name of “Separation of Church and State.”  Last week it was our Congress, removing the right of trial and habeas corpus from US Citizens.  I attribute this to the dismal state of our education system.  We the people are so very ignorant of not only what our Liberties are, but of their source and value.  Ask someone to tell you the five specific protections that exist in the First Amendment and you might hear one or two, followed by a blank stare and silence. Those that hate the fact that Liberty is an inherent possession of the people and want Liberty to be something the government gives to the “worthy” have really taken advantage of this gross negligence.  If we do not know, if we do not understand what our Liberties are, how do we recognize when they are under attack?

Our legal education system is no better.  Rulings that fly in the face of our founders’ intent illustrate the shaky foundation given to our lawyers and judges.  In a recent example a US District Judge, Marco A. Hernandez, has taken it upon himself to decide who has the right to freedom of the press and its protections and who does not.   This judge has done so by determining that a blogger, who has over 400 blogsites that publish her work, cannot possibly fall under the title of journalist.  After all, we all know that the only people that are journalists are those represented in the White House Press Corp or paid by top media corporations.  We definitely cannot accept someone who considers themselves a “blogger” and only prints on the internet as a REAL Journalist!

That is exactly how this federal judge has ruled.  Oregon statute reads:

“[n]o person connected with, employed by or engaged in any medium of communication to the public shall be required by . . . a judicial officer . . . to disclose, by subpoena or otherwise . . . [t]he source of any published or unpublished information obtained by the person in the course of gathering, receiving or processing information for any medium of communication to the public”

“Medium of communication” is broadly defined as including, but not limited to, “any newspaper, magazine or other periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system.”

However, this judge has claimed that this woman is not a journalist because she:

“fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system”

I am amazed at the focus of this Judge.  He has taken the examples in the statute as the litmus test for determining media, completely ignoring the very plain statements “any medium of communication to the public” and “not limited to”.  Any other time, a judge would be using this language to bring in everything, including the kitchen sink.  This stinks of motive.  But the Judge is not finished with his definition of media.   He claims in order for Ms. Cox to be “media” she must show…

 “evidence of (1) any education in journalism; (2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; (3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; (4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; (5) mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources; (6) creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others; or (7) contacting “the other side” to get both sides of a story.”

This time, however, the Judge uses no statute, no legal source to develop this further definition. This is apparently something he has come up with all on his own.  I wonder if many in mainstream media could hold up under this standard.  I know for fact that today’s “journalists” fail in at least 5 out of 7 of these benchmarks.  I mean really, when was the last time you heard this level of journalism from any US mainstream media?  Because Ms. Cox does not fit this Judge’s internal definition of media, she is therefore not afforded the same protections as a paid member of the mainstream media due her under Oregon statute.

Would our founders, so vital to the very establishment of Liberty, have qualified as journalists under these standards?  What about the Committees of Correspondence founded by the likes of Richard Henry Lee, Sam Adams, and James Otis, Jr.?  These committees were dedicated to the purpose of providing the colonists with the truth about the activity of the British Government. Many colonists were tired of the propaganda and false reports coming from the King, Parliament, and their dedicated media and wanted to know the truth.  The committees of correspondence provided this truth.  They also became the Sons of Liberty and sparked a revolution.

I’m sure Thomas Paine would’ve landed on this federal judge’s chopping block, as well.  After all, he was not paid by any media corporation and was definitely not approved by the crown for his Common Sense publications. We cannot forget about Mercy Otis Warren, who through her prolific writings of articles and plays encouraged a nation to stand against tyranny.  Once again, I doubt if she would have been considered a “journalist” under this judge’s guidelines; she had no education in journalism, she was not employed by a major media outlet, and she certainly didn’t interview “the other side” to get both sides of the story.  She didn’t have to, she was living it.

But how did our founders intend to handle this “congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the freedom of press”?  The best argument I can offer is that of Alexander Hamilton’s as he states in Federalist Papers 84.

“…why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.”

Hamilton argued with the likes of James Madison and Richard Henry Lee that an incorporation of the Bill of Rights would be a danger to the very liberty that they hoped to protect. He believed to his core that if the Bill of Rights were incorporated in the Constitution, that it would provide to those who wanted to control Liberty the very excuse to do so through definition and regulation.

“I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted… I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.”

Hamilton actually uses the illustration of the freedom of press.  He reasonably argues that there is no need to insert a protection of freedom of press, because the federal government had been given no power to interfere with this Liberty.  Hamilton knew, as Madison points out in Fed 45, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined.”  Madison continues to specifically list those powers as “principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” Hamilton pointed out that regulation of freedom of press, or any of the proposed rights, was not part of the powers given to the federal government so they would have no right to attempt to regulate it.

Hamilton’s greatest fear was that by attaching a Bill of Rights to the Constitution, evil men who wanted to control Liberty would then claim a right to regulate Liberty.   Here we are, fulfilling Hamilton’s greatest fear, coincidentally using his very illustration.

Our Constitution and our Liberty is in peril because our legal professionals have no idea the history behind our Constitution and the reasoning our founders put into its provisions. Our lawyers and judges cannot honestly honor their oath to the Constitution, because they have no true understanding of its meaning.  They cannot do as John Adams commanded, “have an attachment to the Constitution and a conscientious determination to support it”, and ensure a “free republican government” when they are ignorant of the founder’s intent.

We the people must fill this void.  We must become the ones educated enough to make that conscientious determination to support the Constitution.  Reading it is not enough.  Knowing case law is not enough.  Just as any legally binding contract, we must understand what the parties intended the obligations and limitations of government to be.  Otherwise we just end up pooling our ignorance.  In this case, ignorance is not bliss, it is the death of Liberty.

Art Law Prof

Yes Patriot, There is Hope for America – Merry Christmas

/in /by

Many patriots have expended a great deal of energy this year in the fight to see our Liberty protected and America’s greatness restored. As we enter into this Christmas season with many struggles ahead and mountains yet to be conquered, let us be reminded of a hope rooted firmly in the American experience.

Our history is rich with men and women who have surrendered all so that many could have the greatest nation the world has ever known. For over 700 years before the Declaration of Independence, men and women were learning the lessons that would be taught to our founders. Lessons that would infuse our founders with a courage and a hope that would build the greatest nation in the world. Patrick Henry said, “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know no way to judge the future but by the past.” He was letting us know that his knowledge of those last 700 years, were the very reason he knew how this fight would turn out. He knew that every time men and women understood the value of Liberty and pledged all to protect it, they were always victorious. These guarantees of history must have raced through Henry’s head; 1100 Charter of Liberties, Magna Carta, 1628 Petition of Right, 1641 Grand Remonstrance, and his very own Bill of Rights of 1689. These were battles fought in the name of Liberty and he knew that victory was a guarantee. This is our history. This is our guarantee. This is our victory!

Patrick Henry had more than knowledge of history. Patrick Henry knew their victory was guaranteed not only by the lamp of experience, but also because they served a “just God who presides over the destinies of nations” and when standing for Liberty, a gift from God, they could not fail.

He declared,

“We are three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.”

Benjamin Franklin reiterated this understanding to our founders when he proclaimed:

“In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection.- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, & they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor…and have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?”

Though we may become reacquainted with the history that provides us with a guaranteed victory when we choose to stand for Liberty, we are still wanting until we reacquaint ourselves with the Giver of that Liberty. Thomas Jefferson warned,

“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?”

Our founders were in a position to pledge their lives, the lives of their families, everything that they had because they were firmly rooted in ALL the assurances of Liberty.

There is a story told of Daniel Webster – one of the greatest orators of our time – on his death bed, being ministered to by his dearest friend and physician. When his friend realized he could no longer minister to Daniel’s physical needs, he began ministering to his spiritual needs. He read to Daniel his favorite hymns. He read, “There is a fountain filled with blood, drawn from Emmanuel’s veins…” and when Daniel’s friend read the last verse to this hymn “Then in a nobler sweeter song, I’ll sing thy power to save, when this poor lisping stammering tongue lies silent in the grave” one of the greatest orators the world has ever known uttered his final three words, “Amen, Amen, Amen.” Our founders knew that Liberty is a gift from God, and those that stand for God’s gifts will be victorious through God’s promises. They firmly believed that living in tyranny was worse than dying for Liberty. They knew that through their faith in Christ, their rewards in standing for God’s gift would be certain, whether on the battle field or in Heaven.

This is not the darkest hour of our nation by far. We still live in the greatest nation in the world. A nation built upon the principles of Liberty. The principles that cry all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. A nation where all men have equal opportunity to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No other nation can make that claim. No other people have that birth right. But with that gift comes great responsibility to secure that Liberty for generations to come. We cannot lose hope. We cannot let Liberty slip. Because, it is not our hope, it is not our Liberty, it is the hope and Liberty of ages and millions yet unborn. We must reacquaint ourselves with the lamp of experience that gives us the courage to see a guaranteed victory. But we must also reacquaint ourselves with the Giver of that gift of Liberty and the provider of the hope of victory.

In one of the darkest moments of our history, a story is told of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. Henry’s wife had been tragically and fatally burned in June of 1861. Henry, himself, was badly burned trying to put out the fire that consumed his beloved wife. He was so consumed by grief over the loss of his wife, at Christmas he wrote in his journal, “How inexpressibly sad are all holidays.” One year later, Henry wrote, “A merry Christmas’ say the children, but that is no more for me.” That following year, Henry learns that his oldest son was severely wounded in the Civil War after a bullet passed under his should blades damaging his spine. His journal was blank on Christmas on 1864. However, on Christmas day, 1865, Henry penned the words to “I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day”. During one of the darkest times our nation has ever known, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow found his hope;

“I heard the bells on Christmas Day

Their old familiar carols play,

And wild and sweet

The words repeat

Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

And thought how, as the day had come,

The belfries of all Christendom

Had rolled along

The unbroken song

Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

And in despair I bowed my head;

“There is no peace on earth,” I said;

“For hate is strong,

And mocks the song

Of peace on earth, good-will to men!”

Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:

“God is not dead; nor doth he sleep!

The Wrong shall fail,

The Right prevail,

With peace on earth, good-will to men!”

Henry awoke from his despair and realized that God is not dead and is still the Giver of peace and hope. He knew that God promises victory to those who trust in Christ and will stand for God’s gifts. He was able to express that hope in the phrase, “God is not dead; nor does he sleep! The Wrong shall fail; the Right prevail, With peace on earth, good-will to men!” That same promise belongs to us, the greatest nation this world has ever known. We simply must place our trust in the right place. Now that’s some hope and change I can rely on!

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Predator Drone Used in Arrest of Farmer

/in /by

I have voiced my firm opposition to SB1867 because of its potential use against US citizens, I have been called an extremist, a chicken little, etc. Now multiple News sites have reported an incident that made my hair stand on end. In June of this year, a predator drone was used by local law enforcement to facilitate the arrest of a North Dakota Family.

RT reports: “This is the first time in American history that an unmanned aircraft has been used to assist police in making an arrest on US soil.” As if to assure the reader that this isn’t a misprint, the report continues with “By “drone” we do mean military reconnaissance and assault flying machine used by the US Army (sic) and the CIA, mostly abroad…To be precise, this is the same Predator drone that the US Army (sic) uses in military missions across Afghanistan, Pakistan and any other theater…”

Local law enforcement using a military drone – is this some military sci-fi novel we’re reading? Nope. Apparently DHS has been using these drones in the states for YEARS, yet this story was noticeably absent from American media sources at the time of the arrests. Sadly many people still have faith in the American media, especially if the source purports to align with their own political views. Here’s how it went:

The local Sheriff, Kelly Janke, ran into some trouble while looking for some wandering cows, six cows to be exact. Fortunately for the local sheriff, the Predator drone was returning to Grand Forks Air Base from a mission on the US/Canada border and had some fuel left, so what the hey, let’s send it to North Dakota to look for some cows. Really?

According to local reports, these cows were not alleged to be stolen, they had wandered onto the Brossart farm. According to certain local reports, Mr. Brossart believed these animals to be unclaimed and, in accordance with certain open range laws, the cattle belonged to him. When questioned in court, he answered repeatedly, that the cattle were “his property.” Because of this property dispute, legally speaking, this is now a civil matter. Yet, the Sheriff’s office served a criminal warrant to look for these cows.

When Mr. Brossart refused to honor the warrant, he was tazed and placed into custody. Mr. Brossart was not armed. Mr. Brossart’s sons also refused to honor the warrant, and told law enforcement officers to get off the property. Initial reports say the boys had long guns, and later reports claim high powered rifles. This all resulted in a standoff where no shots were fired and no one was harmed.

Now, as a former prosecutor, who has a deep respect and appreciation for law enforcement and the dangers they face, I understand the problem with people brandishing guns in the presence of officers. But it appears to me that the situation was incited by criminalizing a civil dispute. This was reasonably a civil dispute over livestock ownership which would require a review by a judge and full hearing involving all parties before property is taken. But here is the really disturbing part. The next morning, a tip to law enforcement told officers that the boys were out on tractors harvesting and were not armed. Did the officers now come to the property and attempt to serve this warrant peaceably? No, they responded with MASSIVE force.

“Next thing they knew – a mini army and a Predator B drone have been called in. State Highway Patrol, a regional SWAT team, a bomb squad, ambulance, deputy sheriffs from three other counties and a drone arrived at the scene, reports the Los Angeles Times.”

I have been involved with law enforcement as a prosecutor for nearly nine years. NEVER did I see such a display of force over a civil dispute involving “stray cows”. And what did this assault team find? Exactly what they were told, boys harvesting and no weapons and…

“A search of the property turned up four rifles, two shotguns, assorted bows and arrows and a samurai sword, according to court records. Police also found the six missing cows, valued at $6,000.”

There you have it, a small Army called out to subdue cattle rustlers who have four rifles, two shotguns, assorted bows and arrows, and a samurai sword on their 3,000-acre farm. Huh? All this over cows?

And now “the rest of the story.” Apparently, the residents of this farm are members of the Sovereign Citizens Movement, a so-called “anti-government group which the FBI considers extremist and violent,” according to the LA Times article. The primary reason for this is that Terry Nichols was a Sovereign Citizen. However, don’t forget who else DHS considers potential terrorists. Remember the report that claims veterans returning from Iraq and those who are against abortion are also “potentially violent terrorist?” Here is an excerpt:

“Rightwing extremism,” the report said in a footnote on Page 2, goes beyond religious and racial hate groups and extends to “those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely…It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” said the report, which also listed gun owners and veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as potential risks.”

Take some time and read what the ADL says about the Sovereign Citizens. If you refer to yourself as a Constitutionalist, you might be a terrorist. If you believe that government governs best when it governs closest to home, you might be a terrorist. If you take issue with the 16th or 17th amendments, the Federal Reserve, Fiat money, or you believe in the Gold Standard, you might be a terrorist.

Just a week ago the crafters of the SB1867 said they could not conceive of the extraordinary powers given to DHS being used against US citizens; it only applies to “terrorists.” Now we have military drones being employed in the US in police actions against citizens. Really? How inconceivable is it for US citizens to be subjected to the extraordinary powers outlined in SB1867? I believe the purpose of SB1867 is to manipulate the people into giving permission for this abuse of power in the name of security; in the name of fighting terrorism. Are we to believe that they didn’t have this in mind when they wrote that bill?

I am reminded of a similar ploy advanced by King George III against our founders. In his defense of the British Colonies, in the name of National Security, George deployed British troops in the colonies to enforce his laws. In order to properly facilitate this military action, George and parliament passed the Quartering Act.

Whereas there may be occasion for marching and quartering of regiments and companies of his Majesty’s forces in several parts of his Majesty’s dominions in America: and whereas the publick houses and barracks, in his Majesty’s dominions in America, may not be sufficient to supply quarters for such forces…

Understand that George already had the troops in route. He already KNEW there would not be sufficient barracks to house them. There was no question in George’s mind what his intentions were, what resources were needed, and how he was to obtain them. But he could get the people and parliament to agree to this violation of our founders’ rights by softening the language and dealing with a “potential” danger. This is the same disingenuous tactic our Congress has used to perpetrate the gutting of our Bill of Rights and the destruction of our Constitution in SB1867. So, this is only for terrorists? Again, I ask you, WHO IS THE TERRORIST?

So what do we get? Not what Congress said we would get. Not the near impossibility of using this type of military force against US Citizens, but the first use of military predator drones on US Soil based upon a civil dispute over the ownership of cows. NOT against one of the many known al-Queda terrorist camps located here in the United States.

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper 84, quoting Justice Blackstone, gave us this very sober warning:

“To bereave a man of life, [says he] or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.” And as a remedy for this fatal evil he is everywhere peculiarly emphatical in his encomiums on the habeas corpus act, which in one place he calls “the BULWARK of the British Constitution”.

This is EXACTLY what SB1867 does. Why are we so deaf to the cries of our founding fathers? Why are we like the spoiled teenager who believes he is immortal and our fathers are simple old fools who have no idea the problems we face today? They had a deep wisdom, based upon centuries of human nature and experience. We must recognize that human nature does not change; there is nothing new under the sun.

George Washington is quoted to have said: Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.

This parallels Patrick Henry’s warning: The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.

Now do you see why Americans are so concerned over SB1867? The 93 Senators that voted in favor of this atrocity are participating in the destruction of our Constitution and it apparently doesn’t bother them any more than it bothers the rest of America.

SB1867 Revisited (NDAA)

/in /by

On December 1, 2011 I published an article that gave a straightforward analysis of Sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act). There seems to be quite a bit of controversy on this matter. Some feel that the citizens who are concerned with their liberty should be dismissed as alarmist, “Chicken Littles.”

Additionally, I recently discovered congressional aides are telling people there are no worries about NDAA because Mrs. Feinstein’s Amendment, SA1456, saves the day. No, it does not. SA1456 is more political maneuvering that is full of empty language that has no real effect what-so-ever. The language states:

(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

With the “Chicken Littles” and Mrs. Feinstein in mind, I would like to address just a few more points on this issue and then I am done with this subject. I am confident I have done my part to educate on the truth. Unlike the popular media today, I do not feel it is my responsibility to force anyone into my opinion. What you do with the truth, is up to you. I do feel that given what we know from history, both ancient and recent, there is cause for concern.

First, the mere fact that the provisions in question are stuffed inside a must-pass bill like NDAA, instead of standing muster on their own, is worthy of great suspicion. Take into account that every time these provisions have been presented independently, Congress has consistently denied them; case in point, “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010”.

Secondly, these bills are written by lawyers, men and women who are trained to be wordsmiths. They are trained to use just the right words to ensure that the desired effect is unavoidable. Many attorneys (including this one) have concluded that the language in these sections is not direct and clear enough to exclude US citizens. The natural conclusion is that the drafters did not want to exclude US Citizens. First of all, Constitutional rights are not granted to non-citizens. So, why the legislative gymnastics to declare that fact? If the bill is aimed at non-citizen terrorists, then the legislative gymnastics are unnecessary. The proponents of this bill argue that these sections specifically limit actions of the government to al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists involved in 9/11, that Section 1032 does not cover US citizens, and that section 1032(b)(1) specifically excludes US citizens. As an attorney, I contend that if the drafters really WANTED to exclude US Citizens, they would have used language that is common to similar legislative acts.

Here is what I mean: In section 1032(b)(1) of the NDAA, the language specifically says that, “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” Legally speaking, stating that an agency is “not required” to do something is the very same as saying they have the choice of doing so or not. If the drafters of this legislation truly wanted to exclude US Citizens from having their Constitutional rights stripped, the lawyers should have used the type of language found in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e)(2), the section that contains religious exemptions for employment practices or the various religious and medical exemptions that exist from state to state for things like vaccinations.

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e)(2) establishes an exemption from prosecution for employment discrimination violations if the circumstances are based in religious governance. The language specifically states, “it shall not be an unlawful employment practice…” and then goes on to list the organizations that are exempt from the provisions of this federal law. Florida’s statute § 1002.20(3)(b), defining K-12 student and parent rights regarding immunizations states, “The parent of any child attending a public or private school shall be exempt from the school immunization requirements upon meeting any of the exemptions in accordance with the provisions of s. 1003.22(5). These provisions are very clear that these laws shall not apply to these specific segments of the population. They do not say they are not required, they say they SHALL NOT or SHALL BE EXEMPT. And neither does SA1456.

Finally, we cannot lose sight of the real issue. The federal government can never have the right to suspend the Constitutional rights of US Citizens without due process, because the government is not the source of those rights. All other argument against or for these provisions become irrelevant when there is even a possibility of US Citizens having their Constitutional rights suspended either temporarily or permanently at the discretion of the federal government.

One prominent “journalist,” attempting to refute the criticisms of concerned citizens, said that “The United States Constitution is a compact between the American people and the government they created. It endows Americans with protections against U.S.-government overreach.” In fact, the Constitution doesn’tendow citizens with anything. The founders in the Declaration of Independence clearly state that these inalienable rights are endowed by our Creator and in the words of Patrick Henry “the Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” The entire purpose of the Constitution is to protect US Citizens from an unlawful and arbitrary government. This bill clearly leans in the opposite direction and this is something every citizen should be concerned about.

Congress Decides Constitution is a Threat to National Security (NDAA)

/in /by

The principles of habeas corpus and due process extend as far back as 12th century England. These principles were among the most fearfully guarded liberties among America’s founders.   If truth be told it was abuses of due process and an unresponsive government (not simply burdensome taxes) that were the primary causes of the American Revolution. Notice the words of these distinguished Americans:

Ø “Trial by jury in civil causes…trial by jury in criminal causes, [and] the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus…all stand on the same footing; they are the common rights of Americans.” ~Richard Henry Lee

Ø “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:  For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences” ~Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson

Ø “The founders of our nation considered the right of trial by jury…an important bulwark against tyranny and corruption, a ‘safeguard too precious to be left to the whim of the sovereign.” ~Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 1979

Yet, here we are today in the midst of a startling attack on some of our most fundamental liberties.   As I write this, our Senate debates a bill that will undermine the very due process rights that thousands of brave souls have bled and died for.

Senate Bill 1867, also known as the National Defense Authorization Act, is the means by which Congress funds the military and is therefore a “must pass bill.”  No politician wants to be the one who voted to defund the military, especially if you are a so-called conservative.   Those who would be disposed to usurp the Liberties of this land take these must pass bills and convert them into Trojan horses.  This particular Trojan horse puts the due process rights of American citizens in serious jeopardy through sections 1031 and 1032.

Sections 1031 and 1032 of this bill are completely unrelated to the funding of the military.  These sections, we are told, will ‘save us from terrorists’.  The plan is to remove the Constitutional right of habeas corpus and persons deemed to be terrorists will be detained indefinitely, out of the country.  The built-in premise is that the right of habeas corpus is somehow a threat to national security. 

Who wouldn’t want to stop terrorists? Don’t we all want to be safe?  Aren’t terrorist the very demons we should be fighting today?  If you don’t support this bill you are a terrorist sympathizer.

Am I a terrorist sympathizer simply because I believe that you shouldn’t have to circumvent the Constitution to do your job? Particularly considering the very job description these Congressmen swore to do was to “support and defend the Constitution.”   It is mindboggling that those with the power and responsibility to PROTECT LIBERTY are the very ones who will justify its destruction.  Here are the arguments put forth in favor of these dangerous provisions:

1.       These Sections Specifically Limit Actions Of The Government To Al-Qaeda And Taliban Terrorists Involved In 9/11

False.  This refers to sec. 1031(b) Covered Persons: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed , or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (2) A person who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition forces…

I suppose all would be well, if this were the end of this section.  However, the devil is always in the details.  Attorneys are trained to look for loopholes, and those who wrote this bill were attorneys, so they are either ignorant or inserting holes to provide doors for future activity.  Door No. 1:

…including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

Belligerent act? There you have it, the open door to include just about anyone.  Now don’t think these words are not well planned and don’t for one minute assume you know their definitions.  Remember John McCain and Joe Leiberman’s  “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010”?  This act failed, but that has not stopped John McCain.  This Enemy Belligerent Act defines a Belligerent as: an individual, including a citizen of the United States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent…an individual who: 1) has engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or 2) has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”  Hostilities? And the door swings wide open.

Next argument:

2.       Section 1032 Does Not Cover US Citzens.

False.  Section 1032(2) states that the requirement to detain an individual applies to someone who has been determined to be “a member of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda: and to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.”

Sounds pretty limiting right?  Well, here’s Door No. 2, section (4) “The Secretary of Defense (Leon Panetta) may, in consultation with the Secretary of State (Hillary Clinton) and the Director of National Intelligence (James R. Clapper), waive the requirements of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.”

There you have it. All limitations fly out the window if the government  determines a “national security interest”.  But those that planted these loopholes are not finished.

The next argument alleges:

3.       Section 1032(b)(1) Specifically Excludes US Citizens

False.  Section 1032(b)(1) states “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.”  Is this the part that is supposed to stop the government from detaining US Citizens?  Any decent attorney would tell you that the “prohibitive language” in this statement is a bit ambiguous.  What this section says is the REQUIREMENT to detain doesn’t extend to US Citizens.  That means they don’t have to detain them, but what if they want to!  Open Door No. 3, let all who enter beware!

All this sounds a bit alarmist right?  Why do I think the language is cleverly crafted to be more than it appears?  Because those who support this bill do not WANT to protect the liberty of US Citizens.  They will, when cornered with the truth, tell you that any US Citizens who is involved with terrorists “DOES NOT deserve Constitutional rights.”  The idea that US Citizens do not deserve their Constitutional rights is a very frightening statement.  But put that in conjunction with the understanding that it is the government, specifically this current administration, that gets to CHOOSE which citizens do not deserve their Constitutional rights.

Still sounds alarmist right? After all we are talking about terrorists.  So you don’t like terrorist?  I don’t either.  But I do love Liberty and I do fear the power of unlimited government.  And what happens when the government determines you to fit the definition of a terrorist?  Janet Napolatano says that soldiers returning from Iraq and those who oppose abortion fit the bill. Which US Citizens DO YOU think should not have protections under the Constitution? Which one of our rights is a threat to national security and need to be curtailed or eliminated?  Remember William Pitt’s words, “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.   It is the argument of tyrants.  It is the creed of slaves.”

Terrorism is real and we must combat it. But you cannot have peace without Liberty!  According to Benjamin Franklin, “Anyone who would trade Liberty for temporary security deserves neither Liberty nor security”. He specifically said, “temporary security” because he knew that being “safe” is a fleeting feeling.  You may think trading just a small piece of Liberty today is worth feeling safe.  However, tomorrow safety will fly away when a bigger boogey man turns the corner.  Then will you be willing to trade a little more? Remember, the funny thing about temporarily giving anything to the government is that you don’t get it back and they always want more.  Two words: Income Tax.

John Adams stated in his inaugural address in 1797, if “our Government can be influenced by foreign nations by flattery or menaces, by fraud or violence, by terror or intrigue the Government may not be the choice of the American People, but of foreign nations. It may be foreign nations that govern us and not we the people who govern ourselves.”  He was telling us that when the government operates under the motivating factor of fear, those that scare us rule us.  He continued with his warning by saying, “If we are to have a free republican government we must have an attachment to the Constitution and a conscientious determination to support it.”  Our only hope of Liberty, our only hope of peace, is through the Constitution, not by circumventing it.

Congress took an oath to PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES; they did not take an oath to defeat terrorism.  They must stick with their oath; because, the principles in the Constitution do not change; the definition of terrorist apparently changes based on political ideology.

Ronald Reagan called America the last bastion of hope.  He was remembering a statement by Daniel Webster, “Hold onto the Constitution and to the republic for which she stands.  Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6000 years may never happen again.  Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.”  Our Congress has an obligation to us, an obligation to our children, and an obligation to the world.

We must stand for Liberty today or our children will bow tomorrow.  I stand with Patrick Henry when he said, “Gentlemen may cry, “Peace! Peace!” — but there is no peace. What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”

Giving Thanks for America

/in , /by

Our daughter graduated from a liberal arts college in Maryland.  One day she contacted me amused by the subject matter of some of her liberal arts classes.  We began discussing one of her history classes where some time was spent “learning” about our founding fathers.  What she learned about the founders was all focused on the flaws of these men; whether based in fact or revisionist history.  This teaching reflects the popular view, shared by many university professors and school teachers across America, that America is no different than any other nation on the globe…that our nation is “fundamentally flawed,” after all, look at the flawed men that built it.

For example, what my daughter remembers about Alexander Hamilton, one of the primary founders of this nation, is that he was a womanizer.  Not only a womanizer, explains her feminist professor, but a hypocrite at that.  After all, how could a man who is free to have affairs with other men’s wives feel that his sense of morality is at stake over a duel with Aaron Burr?  These questionable accounts are all too typical in America’s classrooms and textbooks.  I have read the same type of story about George Washington, claiming a torrid affair with his married friend Sally Fairfax.  Most credible sources will tell you that is a terrible lie.

I am not trying to give the founders some divine status or even suppose them a level of perfection that they did not have.  We must understand that our nation was not founded upon people, but upon principles. The people that gave us our exceptional American principles were flawed vessels just like you and me.  However, the really amazing part of this history is that flawed men understood that the foundation of an enduring nation must be liberty moored in morality.    Consider these words by Alexander Hamilton:

Equal pains have been taken to deprave the morals as to extinguish the religion of the country [France], if indeed morality in a community can be separated from religion…The pious and moral weep over these scenes as a sepulcher destined to entomb all they revere and esteem.

The politician who loves liberty sees them with regret as a gulf that may swallow up the liberty to which he is devoted.  He knows that morality overthrown (and morality must fall with religion), the terrors of despotism can alone curb the impetuous passions of man, and confine him within the bounds of social duty. (emphasis original)
The Stand, No. III (April 7, 1798)

Our founders knew that Liberty is a combination of two equally important parts – it is FREEDOM under the constraints of MORAL LAW.  Liberty cannot survive where there is pure freedom.  Pure freedom gives man the right to do whatever is right in his own mind: cheat, lie, rob, murder.  Pure freedom is anarchy.  At the same time, Liberty cannot survive with moral law alone.  Moral law not mingled with freedom is theocracy.  Theocracy in the hands of men is tyranny in the name of religion.  Our founders attempted give us this balance and secure the blessings of liberty for us in our founding documents.  When we abandon our founding documents and disregard our moral foundations, liberty is in peril.

Thomas Jefferson gave us this warning, “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God?”

While Benjamin Franklin warned America’s founders directly:

“In the beginning of the Contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for Divine protection…. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of Superintending Providence in our favor…have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?…. God Governs in the affairs of men And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?”

Patrick Henry said “Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.”

As an exceptional nation built upon exceptional principles, we cannot deny that we are built with a foundational understanding of an exceptional God.  Thomas Jefferson reminds us that, “We are not in a world ungoverned by the laws and the power of a Superior Agent. Our efforts are in His hand, and directed by it; and He will give them their effect in His own time.”

Because of our historical understanding that our nation was built on the principles of freedom and morality, America has always been the haven of rest when tyrants oppress their own. She is the vineyard of innovation and opportunity.   This is the nation that opens its arms to the tired, to the poor, to the oppressed, to the huddled masses yearning to breathe free.  No other nation can claim this legacy, no other people has this birthright. This is the shining city upon a hill, and we cannot hide our light under a bush.

The focus of our education should not be on the flaws of the men who gave us this nation, but on the exceptional nation that they gave us.  We have an exceptional nation where “all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights.”  A nation birthed by the principle that the power of the government is to be held BY the people and not where the government holds power OVER the people.  A nation that believes the principle that says all are free to worship according to the dictates of their conscience, and all are equally free, “Jews, Turks, pagans, AND Christians.”   A nation that has prospered based on the principle that ideas and hard work open the door to prosperity regardless of bloodline, skin color or social status.  A nation that has remained free based on the principle that liberties remain secure by maintaining the right to defend self, property, and Liberty.

In the profound words of Daniel Webster, “Is our Constitution worth preserving? Guard it as you would guard the seat of your life, guard it not only against the open blows of violence, but also against that spirit of change…Miracles do not cluster. That which has happened but once in six thousand years, cannot be expected to happen often. Such a government, once destroyed, would have a void to be filled, perhaps for centuries, with evolution and tumult, riot and despotism.”~ An Anniversary Address by Daniel Webster July 4th 1806

So in this time of Thanksgiving, let us maintain a true focus on what is important.  In this day it is so popular to denigrate America for every little flaw.  Why not take back a bit of American Exceptionalism?  Why not embrace what makes us different from every other nation on the globe?  America is an exceptional nation because we are built on exceptional principles.  Principles of Liberty, freedom, morality, and equality as derived from our Creator.

May God continue to bless this America, established upon the principles of Liberty.

The Divine Right of Obama

/in /by

In the finest tradition of tyrannical Kings from whom the people wrestled liberty throughout history, President Obama has declared ultimate executive power. On Monday to an audience in Nevada, Obama said, “I’ve told my administration to keep looking every single day for actions we can take without Congress…”

This is nothing new for Obama, nor is it new in the struggle for Liberty. In 1213 Archbishop Stephen Langton stood with the 1100 Charter of Liberties in hand and boldly resisted the tyrannical actions of King John I. Two years later, in 1215, the Magna Carta was born, and a group of 25 barons sowed the seeds of representative government.

The idea that the people could somehow restrain the power of the King, through representation and a written declaration, was an affront to the King. The King believed it was his God-given right to dictate to the ignorant masses what was best for them. The Kings, in fact, believed that documents like the 1100 Charter of Liberties, the Magna Carta and the Grand Remonstrance were “fundamentally flawed.”

Fortunately, the people knew that Liberty was a fundamental gift from God and they stood against tyranny and gained greater protections with each successive battle, all the way from 1100 through 1776 and beyond. This has been a continual struggle. From King John, to King Charles I, to King George III the tyrants continued to ignore the foundational documents of liberty and disband the parliament when the King’s personal whims were not served.

The current American executive from his castle in Washington, D.C. is apparently asserting his own Divine Right to shape the nation according to his will. His assertion that he will, in effect, enact legislation “without Congress” is a de facto dismissal of the Legislative branch in the finest tradition of Charles I.

Charles dismissed his first two Parliaments under Royal Prerogative during the Eleven Years Tyranny. He continually imposed forced taxes on the people without the consent of parliament and began to dictate in the area of religious liberty. He dismissed the third Parliament who opposed his inclination to fund his unilateral military engagements. Charles ultimately lost his head and his reign of tyranny came to an end.

There was a reason for the sweeping defeat in the 2010 elections. We put representatives in office who would be a roadblock to the destructive policies that have steamrolled their way over liberty and prosperity in America. King Obama is once again lawlessly sidestepping the people’s roadblocks. Your Highness, trespassing is only tolerated for so long! We will end your reign of tyranny in the ballot box of 2012!

The Death of a Terrorist

/in /by

I couldn’t be happier that there is one less terrorist leader in the world. Some have asked me what I think about the Constitutional significance of this action. So here goes. Let’s start by focusing on the problem that brought us here, the 800lb gorilla in the room, if you will; Al-Awlaki’s citizenship. Al-Awlaki’s parents are from Yemen and are NOT US citizens. His father, Nasser al-Aulaqi, served as Agriculture Minister and as President of Sana’a University, and is a prominent member of Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s ruling party. Al-Awlaki was born in the United States, but in 1978, when he was seven years old, he and his family returned to Yemen. He then lived in Yemen for 11 years, and studied at Azal Modern School. Al-Awlaki returned to the U.S state of Colorado in 1991, at 20 years old, to attend college on a foreign student visa and a government scholarship from Yemen, apparently by claiming to be born in that country. Al-Awlaki was classified as a person of dual citizenship, his only claim to US citizenship is the good fortune that he was born on this soil. There was NOTHING in Al-Awlaki’s life or his parent’s life that indicates any loyalty to any country other than Yemen. Our founders made it clear that the most important aspect to US citizenship is LOYALTY to America. Why do we continue to assert that the offspring of foreign nationals have citizenship in America simply due to location of their birth? Al-Awlaki was not a threat to America because he was a citizen of the United States; he was a threat because he had no loyalty to America. It is our failed immigration system that is the enemy of Liberty.

Looking at the activity of Al-Awlaki, we see further evidence of our failed immigration system. Al-Awlaki’s activity with known violent terrorists was well documented. He was being actively watched by the FBI and was a subject of investigation since at least 1999. Yet, in 2002 he was the first Muslim to conduct a prayer service at the Capitol. After at least 3 years of active investigation by the FBI for known terrorist ties, the FBI did not feel that they had enough evidence to arrest Al-Awlaki and bring charges against him. In 2002, his name was added to the federal terror watch list, and an arrest warrant was issued by a Judge for passport fraud. Later that year, the warrant was withdrawn after they decided they did not have enough evidence due to the 10 year limits on the statute of limitation. This allowed Al-Awlaki to travel freely back to the States which he did. Al-Awlaki moved back to his home nation, Yemen in 2002. This is the exact issue, the exact same problem, and the same result that I wrote about in June of 2010 when discussing the threat of our failed immigration system and Faisal Shazhad, the failed Time’s Square bomber. Eric Holder has made it clear through his response to “Fast and Furious” and Faisal Shazhad that he believes it’s our Constitutional Rights that need to be “more flexible”. This administration has no intentions of fixing our failed immigration system.

The only reason Al-Awlaki is labeled a citizen is because of our failed immigration system. But because our system has failed us, because it has conferred a privilege on someone who neither wanted it, nor deserved it – our very Liberty is under attack.

Since he has been granted citizenship status, the government is now bound to afford him all legal protections under the US Constitution. It is absolutely tyrannical and illegal for a president to unilaterally take the life of a citizen of the United States without due process, without proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Liberty must mean more to us than that! If we don’t wake up and fix the real problem, Liberty is lost.

What is wrong with the Executive branch of a government engaging in the assassination of our citizens, who are engaged as combatants against this country, absent due process? First, we are trusting the government to convey truthful and accurate information to justify their actions. However, our founders were intimately aware that the governments often have their own perspective on things and have the power and tools to justify their actions at all levels. Their point would be that a government not only has an agenda, but also has the power to control and manipulate information. Richard Henry Lee stated that we must not only guard against “what men will do, but what they may do.” They knew the power of the government must be closely guarded in favor of Liberty.

Secondly, have we not already seen the threat of redefining a “terrorist”? Just look at Janet Napolitano’s report, as head of the Department of Homeland Security, warning America regarding who is a terrorist; “rightwing extremists” concerned about illegal immigration, abortion, increasing federal power and restrictions on firearms – and returning war veterans.

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

What if you have been identified as falling into this category and you take a trip to some Middle Eastern country (Israel, for instance)? …

Our founders knew that in a government that has the ability to define the enemy, and the uninhibited inclination to define its own citizens as terrorists, tyranny is already established. Unrestrained power of the government must be continually checked against the Liberty of the people.

Our founders also knew some things that we have forgotten, or more likely, have never been taught. First and foremost our founders knew deep in their soul that “Liberty must be supported at all hazards.” (J. Adams, 1765), It is Liberty that is the most important asset to any peace loving nation. Benjamin Franklin is quoted to have said, “Those who would trade Liberty for temporary security deserve neither Liberty nor security.” How could he make such a bold statement? Because he knew from history that trading Liberty will NEVER result in greater security and once Liberty is traded, you never get it back. You simply trade something that is more valuable than your life for a vapor, a false object, and get absolutely NOTHING in return but less Liberty. I find it very telling that our founders never said, “Peace must be supported at all hazards.” Eliminating enemy combatants – good; giving enemy combatants citizenship – not good; assassinating US citizens…a destructive assault on Liberty. This is the Constitutional quagmire we have created by maintaining a completely failed immigration system maintained by a completely inept political administration.

Conservative Republican? Really?

/in /by

My dear friend, Frantz Kebreau, has dedicated his life to saving of America…twice. The first time, Frantz pledged his life for our country as a member of the United States Air Force. More recently, he put his life on hold, sacrificing his career and time with his family to travel this country to teach us all the importance of a color-blind society. His call is an honorable one, and he is not alone. My heart is stirred by several others, who have become dear friends, as well. Pastor C.L. Bryant has given his life to “warn the world of economic slavery, to unlock the shackles of tyranny by teaching Liberty” through his message and his film, Runaway Slave. My new friend, K. Carl Smith, founder of the Conservative MESSENGER, dedicated his life to advancing the message and movement of the Frederick Douglass Republicans. There are so many more that fight daily to save America from tyranny and convince us not to give into the chains and slavery of racism and class warfare.

Given my belief in these dear men and their mission, you can imagine how my heart wept over the statement Florida Commissioner of Agriculture made to reporters recently. Mr. Putnam stated that he was “disappointed”in the current composition of the Department of Agriculture, indicating his Agriculture Department being 78 percent white was “not acceptable”. I fail to understand how he can simply look at the “color” of his employees and determine that their employment is “not acceptable.”

Is Mr. Putnam saying that the Commissioners of Agriculture before him engaged in discriminatory hiring practices? Is Mr. Putnam saying that he can look at the color of someone’s skin and determine that they are not qualified for a job? I would not consider this a historically Republican thought process.

Mr. Putnam made the statement to reporters, “I was disappointed, but not shocked,” Putnam said of the department’s demographics. “I came into this knowing we weren’t where we need to be.” Funny, I don’t remember Mr. Putnam mentioning affirmative action principles as a platform for his election to the Commissioner of Agriculture in 2010. I was fairly active in that election term, attending many rallies across the state, hearing many campaign stump speeches, even hearing the same speeches multiple times. I had heard Mr. Putnam speak in many forums; he is quite a dynamic speaker, actually. However, I never heard him express his disappointment with the racial composition of the Department of Agriculture, nor did I ever hear him campaign that he was going to make it his mission to“diversify” the Department. As a matter of fact, Mr. Putnam ran a campaign on conservative Republican principles, I am SURE that if this had been a campaign promise made by Mr. Putnam, it would have been something of great interest.

Running as a Conservative Republican, Mr. Putnam had to know that picking up the affirmative action mantle would not have been a popular stance. Those who believe in the truly “republican” America (as a principle not a party) know that the fight for a color-blind America has been a battle that lovers of Liberty and Freedom have engaged in for decades. One of those great fighters was Frederick Douglass. Mr. Douglass was an anti-slavery orator and writer. He described himself:

I am a Republican, a black, dyed in the wool Republican, and I never intended to belong to any other party than the party of freedom and progress.

Mr. Douglass gave a speech in Washington, D.C, at the 24th Anniversary of the Emancipation (1886), and said:

“Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe”

Mr. Douglass fought for equality of men through a colorblind society. He also fought for the equality of women, championing the motto “Right is of no sex—Truth is of no color”. Mr. Douglass was the embodiment of the fight for a colorblind society and plowed a path for another great man, whom many are more familiar with, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Dr. King dreamt of nation where all are equally free, judged by their CHARACTER and not the COLOR OF THEIR SKIN. In this battle for a colorblind society, Dr. King stated,

I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality… I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word.

Dr. King, as a Republican, was fighting for a day where the world would shed the desire to engage in an affirmative action, a philosophy “where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress”. Yet, here we are today, still promoting this race warfare mentality and it comes from a surprising source; a Republican Commissioner of Agriculture of Florida.

The men that I have mentioned above are champions of this cause. These men, since the founding of our nation have been fighting to educate the people. James Madison stated in an article written for the National Gazette, December 20, 1792:

“Although all men are born free, slavery has been the general lot of the human race. Ignorant – they have been cheated; asleep – they have been surprised; divided – the yoke has been forced upon them. But what is the lesson? …the people ought to be enlightened, to be awakened, to be united, that after establishing a government they should watch over it…. It is universally admitted that a well-instructed people alone can be permanently free.”

When are we going to embrace the understanding that equality demands, equal standing in the eyes of the people? When are we going to understand the battles that have raged for over a hundred years are still being promoted today through the teaching of racism through the affirmative action agenda? We must understand that we have a great stolen history. If we are ever to have Liberty that understands that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. We must shed the chains and slavery of the racist agenda of class and race warfare.

We must educate ourselves on the essential principle of Liberty that demands a colorblind society. We must watch our government as James Madison demanded. We must tell our elected representatives, like Mr. Adam Putnam that we will no longer tolerate the propagation of slavery and racism embodied in the principles of affirmative action. We will not tolerate anything less than a government that believes that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL and are all entitled to Liberty and Justice.

As a final observation to this thought. When you are searching for this information you will find that there are only THREE media outlets that reported on this issue, one of which simply refers to the other. I am grateful to my local media source WJTK 96.5 “The Jet” for reporting this issue and bringing it to our attention. What is going on in the media when we cannot find journalists who are willing to report the truth? This is exactly the archaic thought process of the establishment that has hijacked our nation and that we are trying so hard to overcome. We The People must inform ourselves on the truth about our elected representatives. Listen to what they say and over their term they will show their TRUE NATURE. You may ask why am I so angry at Adam Putnam? Simply, because I am beginning to believe he stole my vote, and nobody likes a thief.

21st Century Slavery

/in /by

“Our tax code is the 21st Century version of slavery…the IRS has become the overseer of the American People.”  To many, this seems like an absurd radical statement; but, when you look at this statement from an historical perspective, you might just come to a different conclusion.

Throughout history, taxes have been a way to control the people.  My Bill of Rights presentation begins with the year 1014.  England was constantly being plagued by Kings who were greedy or wanting to finance their own adventures through the taxation of the people.  Although the oppression of taxation is evident throughout history, the best place to analyze this statement on modern taxation begins with King John and his reign in 1189.

King John, popularized by the tale of Robin Hood (who by the way was not robbing the rich and giving to the poor, but returning oppressive taxes back into to the hands of the people), took over while his brother Richard the Lion-Heart was fighting in the Crusades.  It was said of King John that he “plundered his own people”, he was “cruel towards all men” and “Hell itself was fouled by the presence of John”.  In 1207 King John introduced the first income tax in England.  Taxation at that time was established at one thirteenth of “rents and moveable property”.   Taxes were collected locally by sheriffs and administered by the Exchequer.  His brutal policies and excessive taxation brought him into conflict with his barons, the land and business owners. Taxes imposed by King John were excessive to the point of oppressive.  This did not matter to the King as these taxes served to double his income for the year, and served to finance his adventures.  Even though the taxes levied by King John were exorbitant, he is most known for his punishments against defaulters.  He was ruthless, showing favor only to those who suited his needs.  The taxations of King John lead to a rebellion of the barons.  A direct result of this rebellion was the adoption of the Magna Carta.  The Magna Carta of 1215 made the King promise that no taxes except the regular feudal dues were to be levied, and except by the consent of the Great Council, or Parliament.

All the way back to 1215 people agreed that excessive taxation was an evil and oppressive form of government.  That did not stop Kings from becoming tyrannical with taxation.  In 1628, to end rebellion and secure the crown, Charles I had to sign the 1628 Petition of Rights, once again, promising that there would be no taxation without proper representation.  Again, in 1689, as a result of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the fathers of our founders made William of Orange promise to not impose taxation without proper representation.

The fundamental importance of this brief trip through history is to first to recognize throughout history that taxation was often used as a tool for oppression.  Secondly, we must understand that our founders, when coming to this continent, carried with them not only their Bill of Rights of 1689, but all the promises of each King contained in each of these documents listed.  These promises all recognized the evil and oppressive nature of excessive taxation and the promise of each King to not abuse this tool of government.

So when George III began engaging in the very behavior of oppressive taxation, that each of these documents guaranteed he would not do, our founders called it like they saw it.  Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense:

If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretences for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey, and permits none to escape without a tribute…What at first was plunder, assumed the softer name of revenue…

Take note of the long tradition of tyrants to use the word “revenue” to describe their oppressive acts.  Terms like “greedy” and “plunder” were not the end of the strong language used by our founders.  Sam Adams made the following observation in his response to King George III’s taxes invoked in the Stamp Act.

…for if our trade may be taxed, why not our lands? Why not the produce of our lands and everything we possess or make use of? This we apprehend annihilates our charter right to govern and tax ourselves. It strikes at our British privileges, which, as we have never forfeited them, we hold in common with our fellow-subjects who are natives of Britain. If taxes are laid upon us in any shape without our having a legal representation where they are laid, are we not reduced from the character of free subjects to the miserable state of tributary slaves?

The women of the Revolution were not foreign to this understanding either.  Over 50 women, led by Penelope Barker, signed this oath in opposition to the oppressive taxation of George III:

 “We, the aforesaid Ladys will not promote ye wear of any manufacturer from England until such a time that all acts which tend to enslave our Native country shall be repealed.”

Hannah Winthrop, while observing the destruction of Tea in the Boston Harbor, a direct protest of the oppressive taxation of George III, stated:

Yonder, the destruction of the detestable weed, made so by cruel exaction, engages our attention. The virtuous and noble resolution of America’s sons, in defiance of threatened desolation and misery from arbitrary despots, demands our highest regard.

This assessments of our government’s policies on taxation, especially under this current administration, are not so radical after all.  Many of us have come to these conclusions on our own.  Understanding that oppressive taxation is a direct assault on Liberty should give us a boldness and courage to stand against this popular form of tyranny.  Sam Adams gave this challenge in 1771 that seems rather relevant today:

Let us remember that “if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom!  It is a very serious consideration, which should deeply impress our minds, that MILLIONS YET UNBORN MAY BE THE MISERABLE SHARERS IN THE EVENT.”

Maybe we should be asking the same questions of our neighbors that Patrick Henry asked of his in 1775:

“What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?”