Independent perspective on consciousness, government, economics, history and wellness.
Posts tagged Civil Liberties
Unconstitutional ATF Gun Confiscation in Alabama
05 years ago
by kahotep
in Rogue Government
The “Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms” is now raiding individuals in North-East Alabama for the crime of exercising their inalienable 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
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.
-Bill of Rights
This is a blatant violation of their inalienable rights, by a rogue entity that is clearly operating outside of its jurisdiction. If there is any integrity left in the Judiciary, this situation should be remedied through the Federal court system.
It seems like an open and shut case to me, they have the right to form a militia, the militia’s stated aim is to protect the Constitution, they never hurt or threatened anyone. I fail to see any illegality here which could provoke the actions that were taken against them.
Notice how every time something of this sort happens, be it Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc, the ATF is in charge of the situation. They despise the Constitution and anyone who supports it and they go out of their way to make “examples” of anyone who challenges their phony jurisdiction over the American citizens. (more…)
Presidential Candidate: U.S. In Danger of Dictatorship
05 years ago
Congressman Ron Paul warns elite believe they own us and are “always prepared” to take our liberties
Steve Watson & Alex Jones | Infowars.net
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Presidential candidate Ron Paul has warned that the US is now at a crisis point because the people have been so neglectful of protecting their liberties and big government has been so effective in eroding them. He warned that the elite are prepared to concoct events to scare the American people and asserted that the 2008 Presidential election is a contest between the people who care about their freedoms and those who are willing to succumb to the temptations of dictatorship. (more…)
Court Rediscovers 2nd Amendment, Liberals Fear Other ‘Rights’ May Soon be Found
05 years ago
by kahotep
in Civil Liberties
Tragedy struck leftists all across America last week when a federal appeals court reviewing the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, ruled that the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed upon by the District. The court’s inexplicable ruling was based on a “radical” interpretation of the recently rediscovered 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reads:
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.
According to the Washington Post, which upon hearing of the decision had a small editorial seizure it called “A Dangerous Ruling,” the court’s plain reading of the Bill of Rights has given “a new and dangerous meaning to the 2nd Amendment.” Apparently, when the Post reads the amendment according to the ancient and safe interpretation (which goes all the way back to the 1970s) all it sees is:
The Population of the nanny State, being composed of irresponsible rednecks, rejects, and retards, must not be allowed to have Arms.
“[T]his radical ruling will inevitably mean more people killed and wounded as keeping guns out of the city becomes harder,” the Post continued, sagely foreseeing a day in the near future when the district might not be the safe gunfree enclave of sanity that it now is. One wonders if D.C. might someday even become the murder capital of the United States without its protective cloak of gun control disarming its law-abiding citizens. (more…)
What ever happened to Posse Comitatus?
06 years ago
by kahotep
in Civil Liberties
Visit any shopping center, sporting event or restaurant and think about what you see there. Do you think that, as long as these people are contented with games and food, that they will care about the gradual erosion of liberty and the incremental increases in the power of the president?
After a rare stroll through the shopping mall yesterday, I came to this conclusion; nobody knows or cares about what is happening. Those who do find it necessary to pay attention, are generally caught up in the phony left-right paradigm and fail to see that the government is using this paradigm to destroy the constitution and bill of rights. (more…)
Bushladin responds to question about wiretapping without court approval
06 years ago
In this excerpt, Bushladin uses the constitution to justify illegal wire taps. He also confuses Osama Bin Laden with Saddam Heussein.Lets see now, which manufactured enemy am I referring to in this answer, aha!
The American people take in this Orwellian double speak without questioning… What is the motivating factor behind all of Bush’s reasons? FEAR.
He always says September 11 this, September 11 that, we have to protect our freedoms from others who want to harm us…
9/11 doesn’t give this man the right to abrogate the constitution. Where in the document does it give the president the authority to order wiretaps without court approval? Why doesn’t he cite the amendment? Are there now “secret” amendments, sort of like the “secret” provisions of the patriot act?
The fact is, these wiretaps are strictly forbidden; Bush is using classic Orwellian doublespeak to mask this and make himself seem officially “correct.”
In George Orwell’s novel, 1984, there are no laws; people are simply taken away for whatever reason the government sees fit. It appears as if this may be happening in the United States; indeed it is a plague which is sweeping through the western world.
Press Conference of the President
…
Question: Mr. President, thank you, sir. Are you going to order a leaks investigation into the disclosure of the NSA surveillance program? And why did you skip the basic safeguard of asking courts for permission for these intercepts?THE PRESIDENT: Let me start with the first question. There is a process that goes on inside the Justice Department about leaks, and I presume that process is moving forward. My personal opinion is it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we’re discussing this program is helping the enemy.
You’ve got to understand — and I hope the American people understand — there is still an enemy that would like to strike the United States of America, and they’re very dangerous. And the discussion about how we try to find them will enable them to adjust. Now, I can understand you asking these questions and if I were you, I’d be asking me these questions, too.
But it is a shameful act by somebody who has got secrets of the United States government and feels like they need to disclose them publicly.
Let me give you an example about my concerns about letting the enemy know what may or may not be happening. In the late 1990s, our government was following Osama bin Laden because he was using a certain type of telephone. And then the fact that we were following Osama bin Laden because he was using a certain type of telephone made it into the press as the result of a leak. And guess what happened? Saddam — Osama bin Laden changed his behavior. He began to change how he communicated.
We’re at war, and we must protect America’s secrets. And so the Justice Department, I presume, will proceed forward with a full investigation. I haven’t ordered one, because I understand there’s kind of a natural progression that will take place when this kind of leak emerges.
The second part of the question is? Sorry — I gave a long answer.
Question: It was, why did you skip the basic safeguards of asking courts for permission for the intercepts?
THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I — right after September the 11th, I knew we were fighting a different kind of war. And so I asked people in my administration to analyze how best for me and our government to do the job people expect us to do, which is to detect and prevent a possible attack.
That’s what the American people want. We looked at the possible scenarios. And the people responsible for helping us protect and defend came forth with the current program, because it enables us to move faster and quicker. And that’s important. We’ve got to be fast on our feet, quick to detect and prevent.
We use FISA still — you’re referring to the FISA court in your question — of course, we use FISAs. But FISA is for long-term monitoring. What is needed in order to protect the American people is the ability to move quickly to detect.
Now, having suggested this idea, I then, obviously, went to the question, is it legal to do so? I am — I swore to uphold the laws. Do I have the legal authority to do this? And the answer is, absolutely. As I mentioned in my remarks, the legal authority is derived from the Constitution, as well as the authorization of force by the United States Congress.