First Six Amendments Assume Government is Corrupt.

Driving along today, I started fiddling around with the radio stations when I came across this guy explaining what his law professor (Professor Cloud, I think) had explained to him: that the first six amendments are a unified body of logic, based on the assumption that government is bad.

You must also assume that government is your enemy.  That's right, assume that the government will trample your rights, target certain political and religious minorities, and come after you without probable cause (especially when they employ Rape-a-scan to gate rape you and your 6-year old at airports).

“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”
by Thomas Jefferson

Thus, the first six amendments were created.  So, the First amendment  guarantees free speech, free assembly, free religious expression, and freedom to petition.

However, what's to stop governments from coming after people who partake in these freedoms?  Nothing.

Hence, the creation of the second amendment: the right to bear arms. Why? To protect you from officials who overstep their boundaries.

But what happens when the police force show up at your door? The army? And, rest assured, they will if you dare to pull a gun on a fed. So, that's where the third amendment comes in, as it guarantees that the government will not house troops in your home or private property without your consent.

Nevertheless, who remembers the third amendment, right? No one.

That's where the 4th amendment comes in. So, when the government forgets the third amendment, and sends out the troops to invade your house, the 4th says they cannot go through your stuff. Uhm, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out if they kick your door down, they will go through your stuff.

Hence, the creation of the 5th amendment. Anyone who watches the boob tube remembers this one, because of the often recited phrase: "I plead the 5th."  The 5th also guarantees Americans the right to trial by Grand Jury.

Nevertheless, even if that indictment is obtained, the 6th amendment guarantees you the right to a judgement by a fully informed petit jury. Not only does this jury judge the individual facts, but can also judge the law, itself.

The bottom line is that even legally obtained power can, and more than likely will (to some degree) abuse that power and show utter disregard for constituted law and order.

Links:

Freedom Law Self-help law clinic and law library.

Read more...

Church Prunes Gay Trees in Sin.

Albemarle Road Presbyterian Church, in Charlotte, NC, has been hit with a $4,000 fine for excessive pruning. That's right...$100 per branch, for trimming its own trees...incorrectly!

The Charlotte Observer reports, that city officials slapped Albemarle Road Presbyterian Church with a fine of $100 per branch for “excessively pruning” its crape myrtles.

Now,  it just so happens that is the same church at which the debate to end the "ban on gays and lesbians becoming clergy and lay leaders in the Presbyterian Church took place, which culminated in a vote of 162-154 to change the denomination's constitution by removing a 1997 amendment that said the ordained must either be single and chaste or in a heterosexual marriage".

The Presbytery of Charlotte added its support Tuesday to ending the ban on gays and lesbians becoming clergy and lay leaders in the Presbyterian Church (USA).

Presbyterian church leaders from the seven-county Charlotte region voted 162-154 to change the denomination's constitution by removing a 1997 amendment that said the ordained must either be single and chaste or in a heterosexual marriage.

Going into Tuesday's local vote, that change already had won the backing of a majority of presbyteries in the country. It was scheduled to become effective in July, whatever the Charlotte vote.

Still, Tuesday's debate at Albemarle Road Presbyterian Church drew about 40 speakers - in addition to the two Charlotte pastors chosen to present the two sides.

Could it be, perhaps, that some of the church's more homophobic members,  who just so happened to be in the employment of the city, blamed, what they assumed were "gay" trees, for influencing the end of the ban on gay clergy? Because, you see, the fine will be dropped if the trees are REPLACED...with homophobic trees, no doubt.

"Tom Johnson, senior urban forester for the Charlotte Land Development Division, said, the fine would be dropped if the church replaced each of the improperly pruned trees".

Just a thought.

Read more...

Sliding Further Down the Slippery Slope of Government Intrusion.

It's becoming increasingly apparent that we, the people are increasingly losing our right to be secure in our homes and in our persons.  In an ironic twist, just as we get the news that cops may be suspect in the Long Island serial killings (Of course, the NYPD denies this), the Indiana Supreme Court - in a decision that overturns centuries of common law - ruled, that residents have no right to resist the entry of police, without warrant.

This decision stems from a case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.  Dissenters, Justices Robert Rucker and  Brent Dickson said that they would have supported the ruling if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations.

"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence." -- Indiana Supreme Court Justice Steven David

Another dissenting judge said,

“government agents may now enter their homes illegally – that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances.”

What did the three justices that ruled that police can break down the door of any home, if the situation warrants  (left to the arbitrary discretion of the police official)?   Well, they said residents can later protest the entry through the court system.  Kind of hard to do if you're dead, injured for life; not to mention, it's not going to bring back any loved ones who happen to wander into the line of fire during the warrant-less intrusion.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, 8-1, that police can enter our personal residences, without a warrant, if they smell marijuana, and simultaneously, hear the toilet flush. Why? There is a possibility that the flusher was getting rid of evidence. Now, this ruling is more specific, as it applies only to marijuana, that "dangerous" plant that I'm sure, saves more lives than it takes.  Nevertheless, once again, citizens are left dangling on a hook, at the mercy of arbitrary officials, and their arbitrary decisions.  The one and only dissenting judge, Justice Ruth Ginsburg, wrote,

“Police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant,”

and quoted in a New York Times article :

“How secure do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and, on hearing sounds indicative of things moving, forcibly enter and search for evidence of unlawful activity?”

The infringements to our freedoms are always cloaked under fear and national security; however, that cloak is getting more transparent every  day.  It's hard to deny the serial assaults on our Constitutional liberties and the ongoing attempt to erode the protections of  American citizens from wholly irrational government action, even if you buy into all of the propaganda.  The protection of the lives, health, and property of American citizens, and the preservation of good order and the public morals mean very little, if anything to those who reside at the top of our power structure.

Read more...

Big Brother Trains Local Law Enforcement to Target Law Abiding Citizens.

Within the last few years, more than  70 fusion centers - intelligence enterprise operations responsible for conducting surveillence on suspicious people - have sprung up across the United States.

According to Police Chief Magazine:

In November 2009, after a six-month review, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) Homeland Security Committee said fusion centers should do the following:

•Act as principal intelligence enterprise nodes to connect state and local law enforcement, homeland security, and public safety entities to each other and the federal government

•Harness and apply the collective knowledge of their constituents to address issues related to threat and risk

•Assume the leading role in information-sharing initiatives related to law enforcement, homeland security, and public safety issues

The Police Chief article points out, "the concept [fusion centers] has changed considerably from the original vision." In, and of itself, that is not surprising, as many, if not all, organizations gradually evolve somewhat from the original vision.  However, it's especially concerning in this case, given the exponential growth in technology; the rise of Orwellian doublespeak (analogous to George Orwell's doublethink and Newspeak) by the establishment; the bailing out of banks instead of homeowners; the fact that our nation comprises 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population, and, overall,  the consolidation of power and wealth in fewer and fewer hands at the dawn of the 21st century.

One man, James Wesley, Rawles, in law enforcement for 18-years, compiled a list of things being taught on how to detect domestic terrorists based on the DHS training he has attended:

1. Expressions of libertarian philosophies, statements, and bumperstickers.
2. 2nd amendment oriented view: gunship club membership, holding CCW permit (concealed carry weapon)
3. Survivalist literature and fictional books such as "The Patriot" and "One Second After". 
4. Self sufficiency: stockpiling food, medical supplies, ammo, hand tools, etc.
5. Fear of economic collapse. Buying gold or bartering items,
6. Religious views regarding the Book of Revelation.
7. Involved in home schooling.
8. Express fears of Big Brother or big government.
9. Declarations of Constitutional rights and civil liberties
10. Belief in a New World Order conspiracy

Now, based on that list, former President George W. Bush, and over half the Republican party should be rounded up. As for myself, I'm only "guilty" of #4, #8 (Big Brother...who isn't?), #9, and possibly # 1; nevertheless, even if that list only identified people I detest, "W", I can see where this is leading. It's not so important as to who they are targeting - because that could change in an instant - but that they are targeting law-abiding American citizens at all.

Consider the following statement by this ordinary citizens, with a more or less, insiders view.  (There is no way to verify the veracity of the following statement; however, if manufactured out of thin air, he should work for "Big Brother", given his level of creativity).

I just attended the International Association of Chiefs of Police conference in Denver and took a class hosted by the FBI and Colorado State Patrol about Domestic Terrorism. The FBI's JTTF is urging local law enforcement to have their local fire departments and ambulance districts help to violate illegal search and seizure
The Director of the Joint Task Force was one of the speakers and urged that because we are not able as police officers to search every house due to the 4th amendment. He said that the fire and ambulance guys are in a unique position to enter houses without any criminal probable cause and we shoud urge them to check through houses that they enter for anything suspicious and report it back to local law enforcement or the FBI. The things sounded like they could include anything from guns to right or left wing books, posters, or speech.
This is one of the most disgusting violations of Constitutional rights I have ever witnessed. According to the CSP their are several Colorado agencies already on board and who knows how many more nationwide. This is direct from the mouth of the FBI and is not an internet rumor. Please share this with everyone.

Read more...

Privatizing Life and Death Matters Commodifies Human Life.

Marcus Crassus, of the late Roman Republic, profited handsomely as a real estate developer and entrepreneur, only his tactics were a bit questionable. You see, Crassus' private fire brigade would rush to burning homes and places of business, however refuse to refused to douse the flames until the  the building's owner and threatened neighbors sold the property to him for less than one-fifth the market value.  It worked like a dream...that is, until several years later when Rome crashed and burned.

Fast forward 2,010 years and  firefighters watch a home burn to the ground in Tennessee over a $75 fee. Either not much has changed, or we've come full circle, and like Ancient Rome, we've lost the moral foundation upon which our society relies:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

So how is watching a house burn down over a $75 fee, or letting people suffer and/or die due to lack of health insurance, or allowing children (America's future) to go hungry or suffer the consequences of neglect and a system that puts their needs dead last, synchronize with the belief, that all men are endowed with "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" that is interwoven throughout our Constitution and Bill of Rights?

The Republican agenda to privatize everything under the sun, including essential matters of life and death, while at the same time, supporting corporate welfare and the military industrial complex, contributes greatly to the greed and arrogance that corrupt  the atmosphere and culture of  today's society.  This "atmosphere" is eerily similar to the greedy and power hungry faction of wealthy capitalists and nobles that began to use the Roman mob to promote their own selfish interests and expand the Roman Republic for gain and the acquisition of even more power.

If we can't trust firefighters to put out fires, then the breakdown of all trust - essential to a capitalist society - is sure to follow, hence, the collapse of the American empire.

Read more...

Should We Control Anonymous Propaganda?

After all, it's always good to consider the source, but how can you consider the source when the source is anonymous or assuming a different identity?

The unique characteristics of Internet communications present new challenges to the issue of anonymity, the "concealing of one's identity while communicating, thus enabling the expression of political ideas, participation in the government process, membership in political associations, and the practice of religious belief without fear of government intimidation or public retaliation."

The Internet offers individuals with very little money or political power the vehicle to potentially reach large audiences and make a real impact, thus leveling the playing field. Although the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment guarantee free speech, that does not protect individuals with unpopular opinions from retaliation (loss of job, anonymous threats, etc.). Anonymity is often the only protection in many cases.

As is the case with all personal freedoms, anonymity on the Internet is often used to inflict harm...for example, posting an individual's private information, spreading false or damaging statements, etc. However if whatever is spread causes harm, liability and monetary damages may be awarded.

Proving "harm" is another story. First you must hire an attorney to file for a subpoena to serve upon the ISP in order to reveal the identify of the "defamer", who then has the right to file a "motion to quash." The burden of proof is on the person defamed, so he or sher must present "prima facie" evidence that the accused did inflict harm. The inconvenience and cost can be prohibitive, leaving most of us at the mercy of anonymous evildoers lurking amongst us.

Then, there is the propaganda mill. It's bad enough when we can the "who" behind the information designed to mislead or persuade us, but when the propagandist conceals his identity, the impact could be that much greater. Wikipedia is one example where the "anonymous" go to propagandize. However, as in the case of Wikipedia, most *wikis track the editor's ip address, so, it' fairly simple to see that much of the so-called anonymous editing is coming from Congress, the CIA, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the American Civil Liberties Union.

In addition, large corporations get in on the act: "Someone from Halliburton deleted key information from an entry on war crimes; someone from Diebold, an electronic-voting machine manufacturer, deleted sections of its entry about a lawsuit filed against it. Someone at Pepsi deleted information about health problems caused by the soft drink. Somebody at The New York Times deleted huge chunks of information from the entry on the Wall Street Journal." And of course, the CIA has been editing the entry on the Iraq war.

Fortunately, Wikiscanner and other similar tools allow us to search the millions of edits across the wiki spectrum so that we may consider the source. And, it's never been easier to do our own research for verification purposes.

The idea of government legislating against anonymous Internet posting, editing, etc. is unconstitutional and creates more problems than it solves. Enforcing it alone would be impossible and extraordinarily time consuming and costly. So, since we, the people have the tools to do our own research and check the sources of our information, anonymous propaganda is not all that troublesome . As for the other issues, it's the price we pay for living in a free society.

"Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society." -- 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission

The Changing Web and Copyright.

*In a nutshell, a wiki is a collection of collaborative Web pages that allow users to modify entries, thus, a wiki is constantly changing depending on who creates or revises the entries.

Read more...

Bill of Rights Under Bush: A Timeline

Question Authority, has compiled a time line of the fate of the Bill of Rights under President Bush.

Read more...