Posts Tagged With: Rights

AMERICANS NOW ‘RACIST’ FOR WAVING AMERICAN FLAG…One more reason to deport all illegals…


..’What’s wrong with these white people?’

Who are really the Racists here?

It happened Monday in California to a small group of protesters who waved U.S. flags in front of a school where officials had banned the practice to avoid violence threatened by Hispanic students celebrating Cinco de Mayo.

The controversy developed in 2010, when school officials ordered students not to wear U.S. flag-themed shirts on the Mexican holiday. The ban has been upheld by a federal appeals court.

The controversy brought a small group of protesters out Monday, and the community reacted immediately.

“What’s wrong with these white people holding up American flags in Morgan hill??? Racist a–holes,” wrote Gia Lee in a feed monitored by Twitchy.

The report also noted the school superintendent was confirming that students wearing American flag-themed shirts on Monday “won’t be kicked out.”

“Read that sentence again and then cringe at the fact that had to be said in the United States,” the Twitchy report said.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported a group called Gilroy-Morgan Hill Patriots, who are represented by FreedomXLaw, stood in front of Live Oak High School for about an hour waving American flags.

The protest followed the decision earlier this year by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that school officials, in a dispute four years ago, were right to suspend the First Amendment rights of students who wanted to wear U.S. flag-themed shirts on Cinco de Mayo.

Mexican students allegedly had threatened violence because of the shirts, and school officials, consequently, suspended the right of other students to wear Old Glory.

Twitchy caught Davey D blasting the patriots: “Shout out to the racist a– adults, so-called patriots who are posted up at Live Oak HS in Morgan Hill protesting Cinco de Mayo #idiots.”

“The Gilroy Morgan Hill Patriots … what a bunch of racist d–k-heads!! I think they may be part owners of the LA Clippers. #racist,” wrote Jorge P. Gonzalez.

“Hey folks in Morgan Hill. You have some racist neighbors. You need to check those tea party a–holes,” said Al_Bondigas.

“F— your American flag. Racist as f—s. I’ll always have pride with my Mexican flag but not the American one,” wrote Ivan Mora.

KPIX-TV in San Francisco reported the high school built a chain-link fence to keep the tea-party group from “disrupting classes.”

“Usually when you put up a fence, it’s a barrier. And, we interpret it as a barrier to keep out the First Amendment,” Georgine Scott-Codiga, president of the Gilroy-Morgan Hill Patriots, told the station.

“I don’t believe there’s any need in America to suppress a national symbol of patriotism and freedom.”

SFGate reported students built a “unity banner” to express that they felt united.

“They want to make it a regular day. The students have expressed that they don’t like the outside attention, and we’re trying to help them with that,” Steve Betando, Morgan Unified District superintendent, told the news site’s reporter. “But they wanted to send a message that what the media and the world has really depicted as a divided school is really not a divided school.”

The most recent step was the 9th Circuit’s ruling that critics said called the American flag a “symbol of racial animus.”

“The court’s rationale behind this ruling was essentially that it’s not safe to display an American flag in an American public school, for fear of causing offense and disruption,” said John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute and author of “A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State.”

“This case signifies so much of what is wrong with America today, where the populace is indoctrinated into a politically correct mindset, starting in the schools, while those who exercise their freedoms are punished for it,” he said.

The full 9th Circuit has been asked to review the case, in an appeal filed by a number of legal teams, including attorneys with the American Freedom Law Center and the Thomas More Law Center.

The case centers on a decision May 5, 2010, by Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez. During a break, Rodriguez told several school students they were not allowed to wear U.S. flag shirts. He allegedly told them that he had received complaints from some Hispanic students about the flag apparel, and the students were not allowed to wear clothing that would offend them.

Later, Principal Nick Boden met with parents and students and affirmed Rodriguez’s order.

The appeals court “acknowledged that other students were permitted to wear Mexican flag colors and symbols, [but] it ruled that the school was allowed to forbid the American flag apparel out of concerns that it would cause disruption, even though no disruption had occurred,” attorneys argued.

Rutherford said school officials violated long-standing Supreme Court precedent forbidding suppression of protected expression on the basis of a “heckler’s veto.”

The attorneys said the school’s actions constituted viewpoint discrimination against pro-American expression, violating the free speech clause in the First Amendment and the due process and equal rights clauses in the 14th Amendment.

A three-judge panel of the court earlier had said: “The specific events of May 5, 2010, and the pattern of which those events were a part made it reasonable for school officials to proceed as though the threat of a potentially violent disturbance was real. We hold that school officials … did not act unconstitutionally … in asking students to turn their shirts inside out, remove them, or leave school for the day with an excused absence in order to prevent substantial disruption or violence at school.”

AFLC’s Robert Muise noted: “Not only is the panel decision wrong as a matter of Supreme Court precedent, the decision affirms a dangerous lesson by rewarding student[s] [who] resort to disruption rather than reason as the default means of resolving disputes. The school district’s proper response should be to educate the audience rather than silence the speaker.”

It was pointed out that only violence from “Mexican” students was feared, not violence by those wearing the U.S. flag.

David Yerushalmi, also of AFLC, said the panel “reasoned that because the ‘Mexican’ students were not ‘targeted for violence,’ they were permitted to express their message.”

“Yet, because school officials perceived that the same ‘Mexican’ students might react adversely to the pro-America students, the latter group’s speech – wearing an American flag T-shirt for goodness sakes – should be silenced. This not only creates perverse incentives for student hecklers; it ultimately turns the First Amendment on its head,” he said.

The attorneys noted: “The panel went so far as to compare the wearing of American flag images with the wearing of the Confederate flag – an arguable symbol of racism – and to liken relations between ‘American’ and ‘Mexican’ youth in an American school – a distinction not clearly apparent on this record in that it is unclear whether the students referred to as ‘Mexicans’ were citizens of Mexico or of the United States – with racial tensions between white and black students.

“Of course, plaintiffs had a constitutional right to wear shirts bearing the American flag on their public school campus, even on Cinco de Mayo or any other holiday and regardless of the expression of ethnic pride asserted by people aligned with another culture. The obvious and odious premise underlying the panel’s opinion is that the American flag is a symbol of racial animus – an inherently flawed premise,” they argued.

 

FlagWaving

 

Categories: Politics, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The 2nd Amendment protects you and your Family….


guns

Categories: 2nd Amendment, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Origins of Political Correctness…..a Social Disease that kills….


Variations of this speech have been delivered to various AIA conferences including the 2000 Conservative University at American University “An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind

Where does all this stuff that you’ve heard about this morning – the victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it – where does it come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or homophobic.

We have seen other countries, particularly in this century, where this has been the case. And we have always regarded them with a mixture of pity, and to be truthful, some amusement, because it has struck us as so strange that people would allow a situation to develop where they would be afraid of what words they used. But we now have this situation in this country. We have it primarily on college campuses, but it is spreading throughout the whole society. Were does it come from? What is it?

We call it “Political Correctness.” The name originated as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only half-serious. In fact, it’s deadly serious. It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.

If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.

First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered North Korea where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted “victims” groups that PC revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the college, they face formal charges – some star-chamber proceeding – and punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political Correctness intends for the nation as a whole.

Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this philosophy certain things must be true – such as the whole of the history of our culture is the history of the oppression of women. Since reality contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must become forbidden to acknowledge the reality of our history. People must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes to look out and say, “Wait a minute. This isn’t true. I can see it isn’t true,” the power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie. That is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.

Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of production. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups. Nothing else matters. All literature, indeed, is about that. Everything in the past is about that one thing.

Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness certain groups are good – feminist women, (only feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be “victims,” and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do. Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism.

Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When the classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions. When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance to a college in favor of a black or Hispanic who isn’t as well qualified, the white student is expropriated. And indeed, affirmative action, in our whole society today, is a system of expropriation. White owned companies don’t get a contract because the contract is reserved for a company owned by, say, Hispanics or women. So expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism.

And finally, both have a method of analysis that automatically gives the answers they want. For the classical Marxist, it’s Marxist economics. For the cultural Marxist, it’s deconstruction. Deconstruction essentially takes any text, removes all meaning from it and re-inserts any meaning desired. So we find, for example, that all of Shakespeare is about the suppression of women, or the Bible is really about race and gender. All of these texts simply become grist for the mill, which proves that “all history is about which groups have power over which other groups.” So the parallels are very evident between the classical Marxism that we’re familiar with in the old Soviet Union and the cultural Marxism that we see today as Political Correctness.

But the parallels are not accidents. The parallels did not come from nothing. The fact of the matter is that Political Correctness has a history, a history that is much longer than many people are aware of outside a small group of academics who have studied this. And the history goes back, as I said, to World War I, as do so many of the pathologies that are today bringing our society, and indeed our culture, down.

Marxist theory said that when the general European war came (as it did come in Europe in 1914), the working class throughout Europe would rise up and overthrow their governments – the bourgeois governments – because the workers had more in common with each other across the national boundaries than they had in common with the bourgeoisie and the ruling class in their own country. Well, 1914 came and it didn’t happen. Throughout Europe, workers rallied to their flag and happily marched off to fight each other. The Kaiser shook hands with the leaders of the Marxist Social Democratic Party in Germany and said there are no parties now, there are only Germans. And this happened in every country in Europe. So something was wrong.

Marxists knew by definition it couldn’t be the theory. In 1917, they finally got a Marxist coup in Russia and it looked like the theory was working, but it stalled again. It didn’t spread and when attempts were made to spread immediately after the war, with the Spartacist uprising in Berlin, with the Bela Kun government in Hungary, with the Munich Soviet, the workers didn’t support them.

So the Marxists’ had a problem. And two Marxist theorists went to work on it: Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary. Gramsci said the workers will never see their true class interests, as defined by Marxism, until they are freed from Western culture, and particularly from the Christian religion – that they are blinded by culture and religion to their true class interests. Lukacs, who was considered the most brilliant Marxist theorist since Marx himself, said in 1919, “Who will save us from Western Civilization?” He also theorized that the great obstacle to the creation of a Marxist paradise was the culture: Western civilization itself.

Lukacs gets a chance to put his ideas into practice, because when the home grown Bolshevik Bela Kun government is established in Hungary in 1919, he becomes deputy commissar for culture, and the first thing he did was introduce sex education into the Hungarian schools. This ensured that the workers would not support the Bela Kun government, because the Hungarian people looked at this aghast, workers as well as everyone else. But he had already made the connection that today many of us are still surprised by, that we would consider the “latest thing.”

In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takes on the role of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that creates Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it has created the basis for it by the end of the 1930s. This comes about because the very wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by the name of Felix Weil has become a Marxist and has lots of money to spend. He is disturbed by the divisions among the Marxists, so he sponsors something called the First Marxist Work Week, where he brings Lukacs and many of the key German thinkers together for a week, working on the differences of Marxism.

And he says, “What we need is a think-tank.” Washington is full of think tanks and we think of them as very modern. In fact they go back quite a ways. He endows an institute, associated with Frankfurt University, established in 1923, that was originally supposed to be known as the Institute for Marxism. But the people behind it decided at the beginning that it was not to their advantage to be openly identified as Marxist. The last thing Political Correctness wants is for people to figure out it’s a form of Marxism. So instead they decide to name it the Institute for Social Research.

Weil is very clear about his goals. In 1971, he wrote to Martin Jay the author of a principle book on the Frankfurt School, as the Institute for Social Research soon becomes known informally, and he said, “I wanted the institute to become known, perhaps famous, due to its contributions to Marxism.” Well, he was successful. The first director of the Institute, Carl Grunberg, an Austrian economist, concluded his opening address, according to Martin Jay, “by clearly stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a scientific methodology.” Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at the Institute, and that never changed.
The initial work at the Institute was rather conventional, but in 1930 it acquired a new director named Max Horkheimer, and Horkheimer’s views were very different. He was very much a Marxist renegade. The people who create and form the Frankfurt School are renegade Marxists. They’re still very much Marxist in their thinking, but they’re effectively run out of the party. Moscow looks at what they are doing and says, “Hey, this isn’t us, and we’re not going to bless this.”

Horkheimer’s initial heresy is that he is very interested in Freud, and the key to making the translation of Marxism from economic into cultural terms is essentially that he combined it with Freudism. Again, Martin Jay writes, “If it can be said that in the early years of its history, the Institute concerned itself primarily with an analysis of bourgeois society’s socio-economic sub-structure,” – and I point out that Jay is very sympathetic to the Frankfurt School, I’m not reading from a critic here – “in the years after 1930 its primary interests lay in its cultural superstructure. Indeed the traditional Marxist formula regarding the relationship between the two was brought into question by Critical Theory.”

The stuff we’ve been hearing about this morning – the radical feminism, the women’s studies departments, the gay studies departments, the black studies departments – all these things are branches of Critical Theory. What the Frankfurt School essentially does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create this theory called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because you’re tempted to ask, “What is the theory?” The theory is to criticize. The theory is that the way to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse to do that. They say it can’t be done, that we can’t imagine what a free society would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we’re living under repression – the repression of a capitalistic economic order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression – we can’t even imagine it. What Critical Theory is about is simply criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in every possible way, designed to bring the current order down. And, of course, when we hear from the feminists that the whole of society is just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism is a derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not the 1960s.

Other key members who join up around this time are Theodore Adorno, and, most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Fromm and Marcuse introduce an element which is central to Political Correctness, and that’s the sexual element. And particularly Marcuse, who in his own writings calls for a society of “polymorphous perversity,” that is his definition of the future of the world that they want to create. Marcuse in particular by the 1930s is writing some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this runs through the whole Institute. So do most of the themes we see in Political Correctness, again in the early 30s. In Fromm’s view, masculinity and femininity were not reflections of ‘essential’ sexual differences, as the Romantics had thought. They were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined.” Sex is a construct; sexual differences are a construct.

Another example is the emphasis we now see on environmentalism. “Materialism as far back as Hobbes had led to a manipulative dominating attitude toward nature.” That was Horkhemier writing in 1933 in Materialismus und Moral. “The theme of man’s domination of nature,” according to Jay, ” was to become a central concern of the Frankfurt School in subsequent years.” “Horkheimer’s antagonism to the fetishization of labor, (here’s were they’re obviously departing from Marxist orthodoxy) expressed another dimension of his materialism, the demand for human, sensual happiness.” In one of his most trenchant essays, Egoism and the Movement for Emancipation, written in 1936, Horkeimer “discussed the hostility to personal gratification inherent in bourgeois culture.” And he specifically referred to the Marquis de Sade, favorably, for his “protest…against asceticism in the name of a higher morality.”

How does all of this stuff flood in here? How does it flood into our universities, and indeed into our lives today? The members of the Frankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933 the Nazis came to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut down the Institute for Social Research. And its members fled. They fled to New York City, and the Institute was reestablished there in 1933 with help from Columbia University. And the members of the Institute, gradually through the 1930s, though many of them remained writing in German, shift their focus from Critical Theory about German society, destructive criticism about every aspect of that society, to Critical Theory directed toward American society. There is another very important transition when the war comes. Some of them go to work for the government, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key figure in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), and some, including Horkheimer and Adorno, move to Hollywood.

These origins of Political Correctness would probably not mean too much to us today except for two subsequent events. The first was the student rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by resistance to the draft and the Vietnam War. But the student rebels needed theory of some sort. They couldn’t just get out there and say, “Hell no we won’t go,” they had to have some theoretical explanation behind it. Very few of them were interested in wading through Das Kapital. Classical, economic Marxism is not light, and most of the radicals of the 60s were not deep. Fortunately for them, and unfortunately for our country today, and not just in the university, Herbert Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School relocated back to Frankfurt after the war. And whereas Mr. Adorno in Germany is appalled by the student rebellion when it breaks out there – when the student rebels come into Adorno’s classroom, he calls the police and has them arrested – Herbert Marcuse, who remained here, saw the 60s student rebellion as the great chance. He saw the opportunity to take the work of the Frankfurt School and make it the theory of the New Left in the United States.

One of Marcuse’s books was the key book. It virtually became the bible of the SDS and the student rebels of the 60s. That book was Eros and Civilization. Marcuse argues that under a capitalistic order (he downplays the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, but the framework is Marxist), repression is the essence of that order and that gives us the person Freud describes – the person with all the hang-ups, the neuroses, because his sexual instincts are repressed. We can envision a future, if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in which we liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of “polymorphous perversity,” in which you can “do you own thing.” And by the way, in that world there will no longer be work, only play. What a wonderful message for the radicals of the mid-60s! They’re students, they’re baby-boomers, and they’ve grown up never having to worry about anything except eventually having to get a job. And here is a guy writing in a way they can easily follow. He doesn’t require them to read a lot of heavy Marxism and tells them everything they want to hear which is essentially, “Do your own thing,” “If it feels good do it,” and “You never have to go to work.” By the way, Marcuse is also the man who creates the phrase, “Make love, not war.” Coming back to the situation people face on campus, Marcuse defines “liberating tolerance” as intolerance for anything coming from the Right and tolerance for anything coming from the Left. Marcuse joined the Frankfurt School, in 1932 (if I remember right). So, all of this goes back to the 1930s.

In conclusion, America today is in the throes of the greatest and direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power of the state. In “hate crimes” we now have people serving jail sentences for political thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to expand that category ever further. Affirmative action is part of it. The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness on campus is part of it. It’s exactly what we have seen happen in Russia, in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now it’s coming here. And we don’t recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it off. My message today is that it’s not funny, it’s here, it’s growing and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture.

An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind.

Categories: Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

IS GUN CONTROL A ‘RIGHT’ OF THE GOVERNMENT?


The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess and carry firearms.

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the [Supreme] Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as; self-defense. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

One would presume that these two decisions would bring an end to the argument of the 2nd Amendment. It, unfortunately, does not. Therefore, it would help to further look into statements made by the Supreme Court & the ones who have so placed us, the ‘People’ at odds with one another, The Founding Fathers. In order to do this, we must first look at the 2nd Amendment as written;

“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.”

One can clearly see that it was not written in modern English but rather, in the English of the day. In the Heller Case, a portion of the Supreme Court Opinion by Justice Scalia can be quoted to clarify the Courts opinion of the meaning;

“The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

Again, one can clearly see that the intent of the Supreme Court is to guarantee “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms” and that, this ‘Right’ “…shall not be infringed.” To further clarify the decisions and to debunk the argument that the 2nd amendment doesn’t apply to modern weapons, we can once again grab a quote from the Heller Case;

“Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

Again, one can clearly see that this statement reinforces the fact that “…all instruments that constitute bearable arms” are ‘protected’ by the 2nd Amendment along with an individuals ‘Right’ to bear (show) them. This, would mean inclusively that ‘We The People’ also have the ‘Right’ to own such ‘Instruments’ (guns). Sadly though, this is not how proponents of ‘Gun Control’ interpret the 2nd Amendment (not that it matters). For what matters is what our Founding Fathers wanted for us as a Nation and for us, as an Individual. This forces us to take a look into what the Founding Fathers believed. The easiest way to do this is to use quotes from their writings in their own words.

John Adams (1735 – 1826) 2nd U.S. President

_”To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, counties, or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed, and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.”

“Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would. Nor is there anything in the common law of England … inconsistent with that right.”_

Thomas Jefferson (1743 – 1826) 3rd U.S. President

_”No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

“I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the Federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances.”

“Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.”

“The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom of the press.”

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”_

Samuel Adams (1722 – 1803)

_”Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.”

“The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”_

James Madison (1751 – 1836) 4th U.S. President

_”Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…”

“A people armed and free forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition and is a bulwark for the nation against foreign invasion and domestic oppression.”

“…The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”

“The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals.”_

These quotes could go on for page upon page. That, would be pointless. The point of showing one these quotes, is to show that the Founding Fathers in every aspect meant for ‘We, the People’ to be armed at all times and at all times, bear those arms. Obviously, this will not work for every Citizen as some lack the Good Intent, the Fortitude or the Mental Capacity for such things. Proper training by law enforcement would suffice in finding out who is capable and responsible enough.

I beseech upon your commonsense to educate yourself of what this Nation, as a group of Free Individuals, was meant to look like by our Founding Fathers and recently guaranteed by the Supreme Court of The United States of America. Then, to make the Right decision regarding Guns.

I was born into a Nation that Guarantees me the Right to Defend Myself, My Family, My Friends, My Property & the Helpless. Please, do NOT take that Right away because of fears, idiots and bad decisions.

— A Concerned U.S. Citizen

Categories: 2nd Amendment, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , | Leave a comment

BILL GIVES FEDS WARRANTLESS EMAIL SURVEILLANCE…..



============================================================================
A Senate proposal originally drafted to protect American’s email privacy has taken a dramatic detour. In fact, it’s turning around and heading in the opposite direction.

The original bill, backed by Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee Patrick Leahy, required that government agencies obtain search warrants before accessing email accounts. According to CNET’s Declan McCullagh, a new version of the bill does away with all the middle men and actually gives government agencies warrantless access to Americans’ email accounts. The bill is up for vote next Thursday (November 29.)
Leahy’s revision would give more than 22 government agencies access to email, Google Docs files, Facebook posts, even Twitter direct messages, without probable cause. In some scenarios, the bill also gives the FBI and Homeland Security full access to Internet accounts without the approval of the owner or a judge.

Law enforcement groups, such as the National District Attorney’s Association, and Justice Department officials objected to Leahy’s original bill. Detractors worried that requiring a warrant to access email accounts could impede criminal investigations.

Citing ongoing legislature discussions, an aide to the Senate Judiciary committee declined CNET a comment on the matter. In light of former CIA director David Petraeus’ email scandal, Marc Rotenberg, head of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, did tell CNET that “even the Department of Justice should concede that there’s a need for more judicial oversight,” not less.
Agencies granted this warrantless surveillance power include any executive department, military department, government corporation, government-controlled corporation or other establishment in the executive branch of the government. Also included is a long list of independent regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission, just to name a few.
Such a hodgepodge list has rankled Markham Erickson, a lawyer in Washington D.C. who has kept a close eye on the legislation. Speaking not for his corporate clients, Erickson aired his concerns to CNET:

There is no good legal reason why federal regulatory agencies such as the [National Labor Relations Board], [Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission], [Securities and Exchange Commission] or FTC need to access customer information service providers with a mere subpoena. If those agencies feel they do not have the tools to do their jobs adequately, they should work with the appropriate authorizing committees to explore solutions. The Senate Judiciary committee is really not in a position to adequately make those determinations.

In many cases, police will still be required to obtain search warrants — except when an “emergency” situation is declared — but the new bill is in stark contrast to the original draft. Tech companies are likely to furrow their brow over these new proposals. What about you?

Categories: Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Blog at WordPress.com.

mayanexplore.com

Riviera Maya Travel Guide

Cajun Food, Louisiana History, and a Little Lagniappe

Preservation of traditional River Road cuisine, Louisiana history & architecture, and the communities between Baton Rouge & NOLA

Jali Wanders

Wondering and Wandering

Southpaw Tracks

“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.” ~Samuel Adams

Pacific Paratrooper

This WordPress.com site is Pacific War era information

what's the formula?

Nurturing awesomeness: from the parents of celebrities, heroes, trailblazers and leaders

Tarheel Red

A Voice of Conservatism Living in Carolina Blue

cancer killing recipe

Just another WordPress.com site

dreamshadow59

A great WordPress.com site

Mike's Look at Life

Photography, memoirs, random thoughts.

Belle Grove Plantation Bed and Breakfast

Birthplace of James Madison and Southern Plantation

Letters for Michael

Lessons on being gay, of love, life and lots of it

Sunny Sleevez

Sun Protection & Green Info

Backcountry Tranquility

A journal about my travels and related experiences :)

LEANNE COLE

Art and Practice

Lukas Chodorowicz

Travel, culture and lifestyle experienced on my adventures around the world. All photos taken by me. Instagram: @colorspark

BunnyandPorkBelly

life is always sweeter and yummier through a lens. bunnyandporkbelly [at] gmail [dot] com

%d bloggers like this: