Group items tagged

Amazing letter from Columbine survivor, Evan Todd, to Obama, explaining why Obama's gun control proposals are non sense. Evan Todd's open letter to Obama, below. - Mr. President, As a student who was shot and wounded during the Columbine massacre, I have a few thoughts on the current gun debate. In regards to your gun control initiatives: Universal Background Checks First, a universal background check will have many devastating effects. It will arguably have the opposite impact of what you propose. If adopted, criminals will know that they can not pass a background check legally, so they will resort to other avenues. With the conditions being set by this initiative, it will create a large black market for weapons and will support more criminal activity and funnel additional money into the hands of thugs, criminals, and people who will do harm to American citizens. Second, universal background checks will create a huge bureaucracy that will cost an enormous amount of tax payers dollars and will straddle us with more debt. We cannot afford it now, let alone create another function of government that will have a huge monthly bill attached to it. Third, is a universal background check system possible without universal gun registration? If so, please define it for us. Universal registration can easily be used for universal confiscation. I am not at all implying that you, sir, would try such a measure, but we do need to think about our actions through the lens of time. It is not impossible to think that a tyrant, to the likes of Mao, Castro, Che, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and others, could possibly rise to power in America. It could be five, ten, twenty, or one hundred years from now - but future generations have the natural right to protect themselves from tyrannical government just as much as we currently do. It is safe to assume that this liberty that our forefathers secured has been a thorn in the side of would-be tyrants ever since the Second Amendmen

"Free Google Book Search (360 B.C.) The Republic - Plato (46 B.C.) Cicero's Brutus - Cicero   (1517) Discourses on Livy - Machiavelli (1553) The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude - Étienne de La Boétie (1690) Two Treatises of Government - John Locke   (1698) Discourses Concerning Government - Algernon Sydney Sidney's Discourses and Locke's Second Treatise were recommended by Jefferson and Madison as containing the "general principles of liberty and the rights of man, in nature and society" (1748) The Spirit of Laws  - Montesquieu (1748) The Principles of Natural and Politic Law - Burlamaqui   (1755) Old Family Letters - John Adams (1758) The Law of Nations- Vattel   (1764-1769) The Writings of Samuel Adams (1765-1769) Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1766) The Declaratory Act (1770) The Writings of John Adams V1-2              The Writings of John Adams V3-4              The Writings of John Adams V5-7              The Writings of John Adams V8-10   (1771-1788) The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin (1772) The Votes and Proceedings of the Freeholders and other Inhabitants (1774) A Full Vindication of the Measures of Congress - Hamilton (1774) Novanglus - John Adams Principle Controversy between Great Britain and Her Colonies (1776) Common Sense- Thomas Paine One Incident which gave a stimulus to the pamphlet Common Sense was, that it happened to appear on the very day that the King of England's speech reached the United States, in which the Americans were denounced as rebels and traitors, and in which speech it was asserted to be the right of the legislature of England to bind the Colonies in all cases whatsoever. (1776-1783) The Crisis- Thomas Paine (1780) Journal of the Convention for Framing the Massachusetts Bay Constitution (1785) Remarks concerning the Government and Laws of the United States of America: in Four Letters addressed to Mr. Adams (1787) The Anti-Federalist (audio) (1787) The Federalist

The Florida case is particularly interesting because Florida is within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which has just ruled that law enforcement must obtain a search warrant from a court before using equipment to determine a cell phone's location.  

"In a democracy, elected representatives make laws. But with new trade agreements, businesses could co-write legislation. The United States and the European Union (EU) are negotiating a trade agreement, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). The aim is to lower trade barriers. Unfortunately those 'barriers' include not just traditional trade tariffs and quotas, but also the laws your elected representatives make. For example, Pierre Defraigne, former Deputy Director-General in the EU Commission Department responsible for Trade, sees the core battle of TTIP is over "the norms and standards in terms of environmental, health and consumer protection". This is why the fight against TTIP is a fight for democracy. It is not about protectionism, but rather the protection of our democratic laws over their business interests. If TTIP was to be signed, two new doors will be opened for businesses to influence legislation: 1. Firstly, regulatory co-operation will give access to industry before laws are to be signed. This means regulators and stakeholders work together for the convergence of laws across the Atlantic. 2. And secondly, once laws are enacted, private investors can sue the EU or US in private tribunals, outside of national courts (known as ISDS or investor-state dispute settlement). The example of the chemical Bisphenol A illustrates what both these 'open doors' for business could mean in practice. Used in everything from water bottles to the lining of food cans, Bisphenol A is one of the most ubiquitous endocrine disruptors. As such, it disrupts the hormonal system of the body, which is responsible for all vital features such as growth, sexual development, and even behaviour. Its presence in the natural world is already felt: two out of three fish caught in Austrian rivers are now female. Bisphenol A has been banned in France since 1st January 2015. This ban goes further than the existing EU ban. Meanwhile, Bisphenol A is stil

The quoted passage include a link to the public law version of the quoted statute, which includes a definition of "authorized intelligence activities" and a reference indicating the law was codified at 50 U.S.C. 442. But it ain't there in the LII Cornell online version of the Code or in the Senate's online version. The Senate version has a reference saying that it was editorially transferred to another location in a Title dealing with disposal of government records. But the referenced sections do not exist there. So a trip to the law library to check the printed version and Westlaw. At this point I cannot confirm that the statute is still in force. But this is a great example of the evils of tucking substantive legislation into appropriation and other "Christmas Tree" bills. Oregon has a state constitutional provision limiting legislative enactments to a single subject. It's been used as authority by Oregon courts to void legislation on many occasions. But good luck trying to get the federal constitution amended to add a similar limitation.   

Another "sting" type prosecution where the FBI enticed a defendant to perform a terrorist act. But now a direct challenge to government refusal to disclose whether the email that triggered the government's interest in the defendant was unconstitutionally obtained. If so, long established criminal procedure would require that the email and all evidence discovered because of it would have to be excluded from trial unless the government could meet once of the narrow exceptions.    

Details of how a federal Judge came to rule that the insideous NDAA law is un Constitutional. excerpt: Posted on May 18, 2012 By Chris Hedges In January, attorneys Carl Mayer and Bruce Afran asked me to be the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit against President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta that challenged the harsh provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). We filed the lawsuit, worked for hours on the affidavits, carried out the tedious depositions, prepared the case and went to trial because we did not want to be passive in the face of another egregious assault on basic civil liberties, because resistance is a moral imperative, and because, at the very least, we hoped we could draw attention to the injustice of the law. None of us thought we would win. But every once in a while the gods smile on the damned. U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest, in a 68-page opinion, ruled Wednesday that Section 1021 of the NDAA was unconstitutional. It was a stunning and monumental victory. With her ruling she returned us to a country where-as it was before Obama signed this act into law Dec. 31-the government cannot strip a U.S. citizen of due process or use the military to arrest him or her and then hold him or her in military prison indefinitely. She categorically rejected the government's claims that the plaintiffs did not have the standing to bring the case to trial because none of us had been indefinitely detained, that lack of imminent enforcement against us meant there was no need for an injunction and that the NDAA simply codified what had previously been set down in the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force Act. The ruling was a huge victory for the protection of free speech. Judge Forrest struck down language in the law that she said gave the government the ability to incarcerate people based on what they said or wrote. Maybe the ruling won't last. Maybe it will be overturned. But we and other Americans are

The Court's decision is here. http://sdnyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/12-Civ.-00331-2012.05.16-Opinion-Granting-PI.pdf

Tom Woods speaking in Boulder, Co.  This video is 1 hour long, but it may be the best 1 hour ever spent!  Should be mandatory viewing for every American before they enter the voting booth.  Hayek and the Austrian Business - Economic cycle theory are fully explained and applied to historical cycles of boom and bust, with particular attention, very humurous attention i might add, to the 2001 and 2008 financial collapse. One thing puzzles me though.  I kept wondering how it is we restructure the banking system?  Killing the Federal reserve is just the start.  But how do we "free" the market balance of investment, resources and savings from the disruption of artificial or mistaken interest rates?  It seems to me that Banks have always had difficulty with the allocation of investment resources - "capital" with a K. As i listened to Tom, totally captured by his engaging presentation, the depths of his thinking, and the humorous delivery, i couldn't help but think that one way of ending the vicious cycles of interest rate buffoonery would be to end the Federal Bankster Reserve, put the currency into the hands of the US Treasury, with the States electing currency governors to control the Treasury; but fixing the interest rate of treasury currency to the value of "Lawful money" as defined in the Constitution to be that which is redeemable in Gold or Silver.  As in, the historical value of the dollar = 371.25 troy grains of silver.  The fact is, "Lawful money" is a Constitutional requirement. Today we have two kinds of dollars: fiat, or funny money, and, Lawful money.  The conversion rate between fiat dollars and Gold is once again near $1700 per ounce.  My question is; How do we derive a "Lawful Interest Rate" from the ratio of fiat to "Lawful money"?  Seems to me that for the Austrian business cycle to work, some guidance to a "Lawful Interest Rate" must be outlined.

Obama's speech at West Point was indeed a gigantic slap in the face at international law and at the Constitution. http://goo.gl/icJGDz The Rule of Law is no longer a guiding light in the White House, now only an obligatory nod of nominal respect. The Imperial Presidency has announced that we are now citizens of post-constitutional America.  

Chilling stuff.  Note that Mark Klien is an important whistleblower whose testimony has helped expose the  Federal Government - NSA domestic dragnet that has violated the constitutional rights of hundreds of thousands of law abiding American citizens.  The question I have concerns cooperation between NSA NARUS spying and the IRS. We know that the IRS used key words such as "TEA PARTY", "PATRIOT", "Constitution", and "Tenth Amendment" to target American citizens.  Does the NSA NARUS target Americans in the same way?  Are there political enemy lists with background surveillance information now circulating through different government agencies based on this targeted and illegal spying? The first thing we need to do is protect whistle blowers who are risking it all to protect the constitutional rights of American citizens and save our country.   "The equipment that technician Mark Klein learned was installed in the National Security Agency's "secret room" inside AT&T's San Francisco switching office isn't some sinister Big Brother box designed solely to help governments eavesdrop on citizens' internet communications. Rather, it's a powerful commercial network-analysis product with all sorts of valuable uses for network operators. It just happens to be capable of doing things that make it one of the best internet spy tools around. "Anything that comes through (an internet protocol network), we can record," says Steve Bannerman, marketing vice president of Narus, a Mountain View, California, company. "We can reconstruct all of their e-mails along with attachments, see what web pages they clicked on, we can reconstruct their (voice over internet protocol) calls."" Narus' product, the Semantic Traffic Analyzer, is a software application that runs on standard IBM or Dell servers using the Linux operating system. It's renowned within certain circles for its ability to inspect traffic in real time on high-bandwidth pipes, identifying packets of interest as they r

One of the best arguments for protecting individual liberty through the Constitution and Bill of Rights; including the 2nd Amendment. excerpt: Junking the collectivist approach, ridding myself of the idea that the lives of the few can be sacrificed to the lives of the many, I found the issue almost settled itself. Taking the individualist approach, I asked myself: what laws should the individual be subject to? What is the principle governing the individual's relation to the state? The principle is "individual rights"-your rights and mine. Rights define the proper limits of state action. They recognize the areas within which the individual is sovereign, entitled to act on his own judgment, free from interference by his fellow man and by the state. The fundamental right is the right to life. Its expressions are the right to liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. As the Declaration states, government is established "to secure these rights." To secure them against what? There is only one thing that can deprive a man of his life, liberty, or property: physical force. Only guns, clubs, chains, jails, or some form of nonconsensual physical contact can kill you, injure you, or negate your ability to act on your own judgment. The proper job of government is to protect the individual's rights by wielding retaliatory force against the force initiated by criminals or foreign aggressors. The issue with guns is the threat of force. But the threat of force is force. Orders issued at gunpoint are as coercive-as rights-violating-as laying on hands and overpowering you. (All this is explained in more detail in Ayn Rand's articles "Man's Rights" and "The Nature of Government.") The government may use force only against an objective threat of force. Only that constitutes retaliation. In particular, the government may not descend to the evil of preventive law. The government cannot treat men as guilty until they have proven th

"James Robart, the U.S. district judge in Washington State, offered little explanation for his decision to stop President Trump's executive order temporarily suspending non-American entry from seven terror-plagued countries. Robart simply declared his belief that Washington State, which in its lawsuit against Trump argued that the order is both illegal and unconstitutional, would likely win the case when it is tried. Now the government has answered Robart, and unlike the judge, Justice Department lawyers have produced a point-by-point demolition of Washington State's claims. Indeed, for all except the most partisan, it is likely impossible to read the Washington State lawsuit, plus Robart's brief comments and writing on the matter, plus the Justice Department's response, and not come away with the conclusion that the Trump order is on sound legal and constitutional ground. Beginning with the big picture, the Justice Department argued that Robart's restraining order violates the separation of powers, encroaches on the president's constitutional and legal authority in the areas of foreign affairs, national security, and immigration, and "second-guesses the president's national security judgment" about risks faced by the United States. Indeed, in court last week, Robart suggested that he, Robart, knows as much, or perhaps more, than the president about the current state of the terrorist threat in Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and other violence-plagued countries. In an exchange with Justice Department lawyer Michelle Bennett, Robart asked, "How many arrests have there been of foreign nationals for those seven countries since 9/11?" "Your Honor, I don't have that information," said Bennett. "Let me tell you," said Robart. "The answer to that is none, as best I can tell. So, I mean, you're here arguing on behalf of someone [President Trump] that says: We have to protect the United States from these individuals coming from these countries, and there's no support for that."

I needed some background regarding the founding documents and their position on individual property rights.  Google came back with this gem!   The basic argument i'm pursuing is that socialism is unconstitutional because it's based on the selective seizure and redistribution of wealth.  Meaning, not all citizens are equal before the law.  The complaints lodged against King George in the Declaration of Independence are very much about the colonist not having the same rights of Englishmen as those whom the King favors. excerpt: the purpose of the Declaration of Independence. "Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject . . . ."1 The "common sense of the subject" expressed in the Declaration of Independence was that a national civil government must be based upon the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." The laws of nature and of nature's God dictate that all men are equally endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." In Jefferson's day, the common sense of the subject was that the pursuit of happiness included the unalienable right of the individual to acquire, possess, protect and dispose of property. Because the purpose of civil governments was to secure unalienable rights, violations of one's unalienable right of property were subject to civil sanction. Today, however, the common sense of the subject is quite the opposite. The modern idea is that civil government properly possesses all power over all subjects of property. Any rights that may exist are derived from the civil government. Any rights to property that a person has may be regulated, limited or revoked by the civil government in order to satisfy the "public interest." Some have advocated that there are no such things as rights, but merely social duties. There is a clear distinction betwee

Excellent essay by John Marini of the Libertarian Claremont Institute. The "brutal good" of both Batman and Tom Doniphon, "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" are once again on display. Awesome stuff! John first discusses Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive movement; emphasising how progressives, and particularly social scientists, dismissed the past as inferior to the glorious future their progressive thinking would usher in. Yeah, "those" progressive's whose legacy might well be the collapse of civilization! "For progressive historians, the past was not intelligible in its own right, but only with reference to the future, that is, to some form of the idea of progress which, although "almost synonymous with life itself," was wholly unknown to past generations. What had seemed to Abraham Lincoln, for example, to be the American Founders' heroic virtues and tragic limitations appeared to the sophisticated historian as mere reflections of outdated attitudes and beliefs-prejudices of a less enlightened time." Then John goes on to contrast the poetry and truth portrayed in the genre of the American Western Movie. He choses John Ford's classic, "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" to make his point. And beautifully so. excerpt: "The old West was situated in the Godforsaken wilds of the desert or wilderness, without community, without law, without civilization. It was a place where simple survival was difficult, a place where nature was uncompromising, just as society had been in the places left behind. The West offered the possibility of a new beginning, of re-founding, of establishing governments form reflection and choice, rather than mishaps of birth and tradition. In the West, men seemed to have it in their power to make the world over again, and this made it necessary or possible to think again about the conditions, purposes, and limits of human community. But the western movie showed that even in a new land with a fresh start, the law was not easily

The lawyer who wrote the opinion is a QC, or Queen's Counsel. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Counsel This opinion *will* result in changes in UK law and oversight of GCHQ. And because much of it is based on the European Convention on Human Rights, the opinion will stoke the anti-spying sentiment in the European Community, which is already at fever-pitch. The ECHR is Europe's implementation of several U.N. treaties on human rights, so the blowback may well extend beyond the EU and UK.  

While I'd be the first to agree that the degree of fiscal mismanagement of this nation's economy is beyond insane and have to admit that I see very little to admire in Barack Obama's presidency, the meme about Executive Order 13603 authorizing confiscation of any property and enslavement of the American public needs to be put to rest. See http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/2012.html#13603 E.O. 13603 is not much more than an updating of similar executive orders issued by prior presidents beginning with Dwight Eisenhower. In fact, in skimming it a few minutes ago, I didn't see anything drastically different from some of the prior related orders. E.g., it reflects that a bunch of agencies that were formerly either independent or under other departments are now under the newish Department of Homeland Security, whose Secretary now gets the authority formerly delegated to other department and agency heads. If blame must be cast, it belongs on the Congress that enacted the Defense Production Act of 1950, 50 U.S.C. 2061, et seq. The executive order does no more than obey that Act's instructions. For example there is a section authorizing pre-emption of manufacturing capacity of critical industries over any existing civilian contracts in the event of a national emergency, but that language is in the statute as well. But that power hasn't had much traction since Harry Truman tried to nationalize the steel industry to break a nationwide strike. The Supreme Court swatted down that effort as an abuse of a power that would be lawful in a true emergency, like another major. But even that semi-radical "survival" power is ameliorated by other provisions of the statute and the order that authorize loan guarantees for companies' construction and maintenance of critical productive capacity. Much of that has been implemented over the years as outright grants. So for example, many chemical manufacturing plants were built with Defense Production Act funds, with