Tags: The Bill of Rights

Texas High School Rewrites the Second Amendment in its History Books

This is straight up ridiculous. The Daily Paul has brought to my attention that Guyer High School in Denton, Texas is currently using a textbook that describes the 2nd Amendment as such:

Screen Shot 2013-09-17 at 4.58.13 PM

Now this is what the 2nd Amendment actually says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Daily Paul correctly points out:

Did you catch the sleight of hand?

A militia is a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies. It’s a common man army of citizens, NOT soldiers. The citizens are called up in emergencies to protect the free State.

The 2nd Amendment says that a militia is necessary to protect a free State, so in order to be able to have a militia, the citizens have a natural right to keep and bear arms and the government cannot infringe on that right.

The textbook version implies that we’re only allowed to keep and bear arms if we’re in a State militia, a clear misrepresentation of the 2nd Amendment.

Anyone that has actually read the Bill of Rights, understands that they are very brief in text. There is absolutely no reason to ever abbreviate any of these Amendments considering how crucial they are to our civil liberties.

To demonstrate just how brief they are, I have listed them below:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Read the Full Article »

My Response to David Brooks’ Hit Piece on Edward Snowden

Where does the New York Times find these people?  I used to think Paul Krugman was bad, but David Brooks makes Krugman look like the reincarnation of Nostradamus and Adam Smith. A few minutes ago, I had the unfortunate experience of reading the latest nonsensical, statist drivel from David Brooks in an Op-Ed on Edward Snowden titled “The Solitary Leaker.” I’m not sure if my brain cells will ever forgive me the experience.

It’s one thing to write a hit-piece on Snowden (something we all knew would happen), and I don’t think it comes as a surprise to anyone that the New York Times would be the “paper of record” to bring us such an editorial.  It’s quite another to write one that would only influence the simplest and most ignorant, brainwashed mind.  He sounds like a 15 year old boy arguing in the high school cafeteria.

At this point, I’m convinced that 90% of the people that call Edward Snowden a traitor are merely expressing a subconscious recognition of their own cowardice. The other 10% work for the military-industrial-Federal Reserve-propaganda complex.  David Brooks seems to uniquely fall squarely into both categories.

So let’s get into it.  It appears that David Brooks dusted off his copy of “How to Write a Hit Piece for Dummies” before getting started as he begins with an attempted character assassination.  He writes:

Though obviously terrifically bright, he could not successfully work his way through the institution of high school. Then he failed to navigate his way through community college. 

What drivel.  So many of the world’s most successful entrepreneurs and thinkers failed to thrive in the school system.  They were simply too bright.  Even Albert Einstein was known to have struggled in many high school classes.

Brooks then writes:

He has not been a regular presence around his mother’s house for years. When a neighbor in Hawaii tried to introduce himself, Snowden cut him off and made it clear he wanted no neighborly relationships.

Really David, that’s the best you could do?

So after he completes his ineffective character assassination, he attempts to actually make an argument.  Something David Brooks is not very good at.  He writes:

This lens makes you more likely to share the distinct strands of libertarianism that are blossoming in this fragmenting age: the deep suspicion of authority, the strong belief that hierarchies and organizations are suspect, the fervent devotion to transparency, the assumption that individual preference should be supreme. You’re more likely to donate to the Ron Paul for president campaign, as Snowden did.

But Big Brother is not the only danger facing the country. Another is the rising tide of distrust, the corrosive spread of cynicism, the fraying of the social fabric and the rise of people who are so individualistic in their outlook that they have no real understanding of how to knit others together and look after the common good.

Brooks doesn’t even attempt to explain why Libertarianism is booming.  He sort of just implies that it has sprung out of thin air and then deeply laments its existence. This “deep suspicion of authority” did not spring from the ether.  Rather, it is the quite natural response to a corrupt, criminal and out of control corporate-financial and political oligarchy that has taken too much control and remains subject to zero accountability.  This isn’t about the balance between the individual and the political system we live under.  It is a realization that the “state” is being run to the benefit of the 0.01% at the expense of the 99.9%. It isn’t any more complicated than that.

Then he writes:

For society to function well, there have to be basic levels of trust and cooperation, a respect for institutions and deference to common procedures. By deciding to unilaterally leak secret N.S.A. documents, Snowden has betrayed all of these things.

While I do not disagree with this statement, trust must be earned.  Our leaders have lost the trust of the citizenry and rightly so.  Then he makes another bizarre generational slander:

He betrayed his friends. Anybody who worked with him will be suspect. Young people in positions like that will no longer be trusted with responsibility for fear that they will turn into another Snowden.

That’s not all though.  He follows it with another childish knock on Snowden’s high school performance:

Read the Full Article »

Eric Holder Responds: Claims Military Can Assassinate U.S. Citizens on U.S. Soil

Last week, I highlighted the fact that Kentucky Senator Rand Paul had still not received an answer to his question of whether the U.S. government believes it has the authority to assassinate a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil.  Well we finally have an answer from Attorney General Eric Holder and it’s not good.  In a press release from Senator Paul we discover that:

Attorney General Holder stated in a letter to Sen. Paul dated March 4, 2013: “It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.”

There you have it folks.  Any questions?

Full press release here.

In Liberty,
Mike

Follow me on Twitter!

Rand Paul’s Third Letter to the CIA: Can You Kill with Drones in the USA?

This letter is a few days old, but is very important for every American to be aware of. Essentially, Rand Paul is threatening to filibuster Barack Obama’s nominee for the CIA, John Brennan, due to his refusal to answer a simple question:

Do you believe that the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial?

This should not be a complicated question to answer, yet it seems Obama, Brennan and pretty much every other little power consumed bureaucrat is incapable of doing so.  Below is Rand Paul’s letter reprinted in full (my emphasis added).

February 20, 2013

John O. Brennan

Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20500

 

Dear Mr. Brennan,

In consideration of your nomination to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), I have repeatedly requested that you provide answers to several questions clarifying your role in the approval of lethal force against terrorism suspects, particularly those who are U.S. citizens. Your past actions in this regard, as well as your view of the limitations to which you are subject, are of critical importance in assessing your qualifications to lead the CIA. If it is not clear that you will honor the limits placed upon the Executive Branch by the Constitution, then the Senate should not confirm you to lead the CIA.

Read the Full Article »

Colorado Moves Closer to NDAA Victory: Please Email and Call Rep. Bob Gardner Now

This morning I talked to the founder of P.A.N.D.A, Dan Johnson, and he informed me that the key obstacle to passing Colorado’s HB-1045 (the NDAA nullification bill), Rep. Bob Gardner, is changing tack.  In a press release they stated:

Hundreds of calls later, our phone calls, emails, and messages worked. Rep. Bob Gardner has tentatively changed his position on HB 1045, and our sources tell us he now even supports strengthening the legislation!

His position change is tentative however, and he could decide to double back if he doesn’t get enough support.

Let’s make sure his support stays with us. Contact Rep. Gardner and thank him for helping to strengthen HB 1045!

Rep. Bob Gardner
Phone: 303-866-2191
Email: [email protected]

Yesterday, I had a list of all the representatives to target, but now the focus is on Mr. Gardner so let him know how you feel!

In Liberty,
Mike

Follow me on Twitter!

Help Colorado Nullify the NDAA: Support HB-1045

The organization P.A.N.D.A. (People Against the NDAA) is one of the groups leading the charge against the extremely dangerous Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).  This section essentially destroys the entire Bill of Rights of the Constitution and must be fought in any way possible.  I have highlighted the NDAA lawsuit against the Obama Administration on several occasions, but what I have not done yet is showcase the actions being taken and victories achieved by P.A.N.D.A. at the state level.  With an important vote coming up in Colorado to nullify the egregious section, this is the perfect time.

The bill to stop the NDAA in Colorado is called HB-1045 and it was introduced by former police officer, Representative Jared Wright.  It successfully made it out of committee on February 18th, and now all of us must do all we can to make sure it passes.  Below are some suggestions from the folks at P.A.N.D.A., as well as the contact information for the various representatives.  Please let them know where you stand!

Read the Full Article »

Stop CISPA: The Internet Spying Bill is Back in Congress

If at first you don’t succeed in implementing total state surveillance on your citizenry, try and try again.  These guys are just unbelievable.  From the EFF:

It’s official: The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act was reintroduced in the House of Representatives yesterday. CISPA is the contentious bill civil liberties advocates fought last year, which would provide a poorly-defined “cybersecurity” exception to existing privacy law. CISPA offers broad immunities to companies who choose to share data with government agencies (including the private communications of users) in the name of cybersecurity. It also creates avenues for companies to share data with any federal agencies, including military intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency (NSA).

As others have noted, “CISPA is deeply flawed. Under a broad cybersecurity umbrella, it permits companies to share user communications directly with the super secret NSA and permits the NSA to use that information for non-cybersecurity reasons. This risks turning the cybersecurity program into a back door intelligence surveillance program run by a military entity with little transparency or public accountability.”

The EFF sums up its most pressing concerns in the following bullet points:

1) Companies have new rights to monitor user actions and share data—including potentially sensitive user data—with the government without a warrant.

2) CISPA overrides existing privacy law, and grants broad immunities to participating companies.

3) CISPA also raises major transparency and accountability issues.

4) Users probably won’t know if their private data is compromised under CISPA, and will have little recourse.

In honor of Aaron Swartz, let’s please stop CISPA.

For more detail on the above concerns click here.

In Liberty,
Mike

Follow me on Twitter!

Picture of the Day: The Power of the People

The image below couldn’t be more true.  The ruling class are nothing more than a bunch of ponzi scheme running, Wizard of Oz con men.  Great job to whoever created this.

PeoplePower

In Liberty,
Mike

When Lindsay Graham and Barrack Obama Agree…Run the Other Way Fast

The easiest way for a patriotic, civil liberties defending U.S. citizen to know whether to support or oppose an issue is when two of the most authoritative, narcissistic politicians from the two controlled political in America are in strong agreement. In this case, I am referring to Lindsay Graham and Barrack Obama’s recent love fest on drone warfare.  From Politico:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) will offer a resolution next week commending President Barack Obama’s use of drones and the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki.

“Every member of Congress needs to get on board,” Graham said. “It’s not fair to the president to let him, leave him out there alone quite frankly. He’s getting hit from libertarians and the left.

“Everyone needs to get on board…” in commending the death of someone from 30,000 feet?  What kind of Nazi talk is this?  So this is what America has become.  Politicians with 10% approval ratings patting themselves on the back for killing other humans being without ever getting their hands dirty.  USA! USA!

Full article here.

In Liberty,
Mike

Follow me on Twitter!

In San Francisco, the DA Wants to Looks Through Your Twitter

This article is a prime example of what law enforcement and intelligence agencies will do to you if they think they can get away with it.  This is precisely why we need to hold their feet to the fire every step of the way and defend the Bill of Rights at all costs.  The more you look under the surface, the more it becomes clear that our government considers anyone that protests the oligarchy to be their enemy.  This was made clear when we discovered that The FBI Classifies Peaceful American Protestors as “Terrorists.”

From the always excellent EFF:

Last month the San Francisco District Attorney’s office went on a fishing expedition.  After EFF and ACLU got involved, the DA wisely cut bait.

The fishing expedition cut short by the DA last week consisted of a pair of subpoenas issued to Twitter, seeking tweets, photos, and a trove of other information related to the accounts of two activists, Robert Donohoe and Lauren Smith, whom the SF DA has charged with a number of offenses stemming from a Columbus Day anti-capitalist protest.

Not only did the subpoenas to Twitter violate federal law (the Stored Communications Act makes clear that the government cannot use a subpoena to gain access to the content of communications), but they violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution as well.  Government surveillance of what we say—even in public—has a chilling effect on speech.  That is why courts have held that any effort to compel the disclosure of a person’s communications or associations must be narrowly tailored.

Read the Full Article »