Liberty

Freedom of Speech is Not Politically Correct

ARC Public Comment Policy Falls Short

By Field Searcy
September 28, 2014

Last Wednesday, twelve private citizens addressed the Atlanta Regional Commission about the adoption of a more friendly public comment policy at the monthly board meetings. For some on the board, the comments were not welcomed. Maybe they were offended by the tone or the political correctness. Maybe the words cut to close too home. Or, maybe they’ve forgotten the price that was paid to secure the right.

The very foundation of the First Amendment was the right of political speech of the people to petition their government or challenge its authority. The ARC receives federal, state and local money. Its existence is the creature of government legislation at the state and federal level even its structure violates the republican form of government. In every way, it is bound by the Constitution for the United States and the Georgia Constitution. In fact, the board members all swear an oath of allegiance to the same.

While all the ARC board members have busy lives and political careers, they should never be too busy to hear from the people that have delegated representative authority to them.

Indeed, the policy adopted is more liberal than the previous policy which required a 10 day notice, a motion by a board member, a second and a 2/3rd’s vote. The new policy on public comment remains inadequate for the following reasons.

  1. For a regional commission for 10 counties and a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) of 20 counties representing more than 5 million people, allowing a total of only 10 minutes with up to 2 minutes per person is not sufficient. Even Cobb County, which has recently been under fire for limiting public comment, has a more liberal policy.
  2. Given the limited amount of time allotted for public comment, safeguards should have been included to allow time for all points of view to be heard. Witness the backlash that was caused in Cobb by stacking of the deck with supporting voices against the citizens with opposing views. A true consultative approach of allowing differing opinions should be protected. A wise person once said “The shining spark of truth, cometh forth only after the clash of differing opinions.”
  3. Public comment should be guaranteed directly in the ARC governing bylaws rather than a policy that can be changed “from time to time.”

The ARC Board passed the new policy with a vote of 19-7. We don’t believe the 7 that voted “no” are against free speech. Quite the contrary, we believe they wanted the sounding committee to rework the policy with some of the reasons cited above in mind. We salute them for their courage to not vote in lockstep with the rest. This was really the significant event since rarely is there ever a dissenting vote on any ARC Board decisions.

For too long, the people have been asleep and silent; not paying attention to what our elected representatives have been doing. We were too busy or too trusting to notice that authority was being subverted to unelected persons that cannot be held accountable to the people.

That is no longer the case. All across the spectrum, a political awakening is taking shape. The citizens are coming together, rediscovering that “We The People” are the sovereigns’ of the government and are reclaiming our rightful place to keep the government accountable and safeguard our liberties.

Field Searcy, a Cobb citizen, represents RepealRegionalism.com an education campaign by the Transportation Leadership Coalition, LLC which led the grassroots effort against the Regional Transportation Tax (TSPLOST) in 2012.

Permission to reprint is granted with full attribution.

Understand the Matrix of Liberty

Watch this video to understand the matrix of liberty.

Traitor or Patriot? You decide.

See the exclusive interview of Edward Snowden by German Television Channel NDR. He reveals the real nature of the public/private surveillance state.

To quote a recent article, “Computers and networks inherently produce data, and our constant interactions with them allow corporations to collect an enormous amount of intensely personal data about us as we go about our daily lives. Sometimes we produce this data inadvertently simply by using our phones, credit cards, computers and other devices. Sometimes we give corporations this data directly on Google, Facebook, [or] Apple’s iCloud … in exchange for whatever free or cheap service we receive from the Internet in return. The NSA is also in the business of spying on everyone, and it has realized it’s far easier to collect all the data from these corporations rather than from us directly. The result is a corporate-government surveillance partnership, one that allows both the government and corporations to get away with things they couldn’t otherwise. There are two types of laws in the U.S., each designed to constrain a different type of power: constitutional law, which places limitations on government, and regulatory law, which constrains corporations. Historically, these two areas have largely remained separate, but today each group has learned how to use the other’s laws to bypass their own restrictions. The government uses corporations to get around its limits, and corporations use the government to get around their limits. This partnership manifests itself in various ways. The government uses corporations to circumvent its prohibitions against eavesdropping domestically on its citizens. Corporations rely on the government to ensure that they have unfettered use of the data they collect. ”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-31/the-public-private-surveillance-partnership.html

Is he a traitor or patriot? You decide.

Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f93_1390833151#lajdTeJ8f5XEVHch.99

How the Democratic Party Went from Thomas Jefferson to Karl Marx

By Daniel Greenfield (Bio and Archives)  Tuesday, May 12, 2009   Canada Free Press

Nationalization, the Welfare State and Bureaucracies to control every aspect of human behavior

“That brought us to our essential difference, the difference of the Evolutionary Collectivist and Marxist, the question whether the social revolution is, in its extremity, necessary, whether it is necessary to over throw one economic system completely before the new one can begin. I believe that through a vast sustained educational campaign the existing Capitalist system can be civilised into a Collectivist world system;” – H.G. Wells, Russia in the Shadows

This quote comes from H. G. Wells’ conversation with Vladimir Lenin. Wells was highlighting the difference between Lenin’s radical revolutionary program and Wells’ own “Open Conspiracy” evolutionary collectivist program.
What that means is that Lenin and H. G. Wells didn’t disagree on the final destination, a collectivist world system… socialism on a global scale applied to everyone and every single country. What they disagreed on was how to get there.
Lenin favored a violent overthrow of the existing free market capitalist systems, putting an end to democracy and individual freedoms by armed force, and replacing them with a revolutionary people’s government that would administer social justice.
As a Social Liberal, Wells favored a slow gradual takeover from within, using every cultural and political tool available to shift society over to a socialist system. He called this the “Open Conspiracy”, because social liberals would openly work to end capitalism and replace it with socialism.
Bill Ayers, Obama’s close associate, is a good example of Lenin gone Wells, or a revolutionary socialist becoming a social liberal. The difference is that the revolutionary socialist plants bombs, the social liberal works from within the system to achieve the same ends over a longer period of time.

The major shift from classical liberalism to social liberalism, required redefining government power

In the United States, Social Liberalism took over the Democratic party in the early 20th century. That fundamental shift can be seen by comparing Grover Cleveland to Woodrow Wilson and FDR.
As the last Classical Liberal Democratic President, Grover Cleveland was a firm believer in controlling the size of government, cutting taxes and vetoing most spending bills. He worked to reform the Federal government when needed, had little liking for unions or socialists and believed the Federal government should stay out of most affairs. This did not make him unusual, but in line with classical liberals all the way back to Thomas Jefferson.
A mere twenty and forty years later, the next two Democratic Presidents, Wilson and FDR, were enthusiastic about expanding government and using its power to bring about social justice. The newly transformed Democratic Presidency believed that government should be in the business of regulating everything and poking its nose in everywhere. By the time FDR was using government regulation to control the price of meat and putting unions in the driver’s seat, socialism was well and truly here.
The Democratic party had gone from being classically liberal to socially liberal. Where the classical liberal thought that big government should leave people alone, and treated rights as freedom from government tyranny… the social liberal thought that government should control people to enforce social justice and disdained rights as “negative freedoms”, instead favoring “positive freedoms” that would involve government abridging rights to create social and economic equality.
The major shift from classical liberalism to social liberalism, required redefining government power. Where classical liberals saw government power as a tyrannical force that needed to be controlled, social liberals saw government power as a benign tyranny that could be used to check the greater danger of unregulated social and economic systems.
Classical liberals believed freedom came from ending government intervention that created inequality. Social liberals believed that equality was more important than freedom, and that it could only be achieved by curbing anything that prevented equality.

FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society

The Social Liberal takeover of the Democratic party was not complete with Wilson or FDR. It isn’t complete today either, as there are Classical Liberal Democrats still in Congress and in various state governments. But with Obama, the Social Liberal takeover has reached almost revolutionary proportions.
The two great Social Liberal moments in the 20th century came as political opportunities resulting from crises. FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society were agile exploitations of an economic and social crisis that enabled them to push through a Social Liberal agenda that fundamentally altered the relationship between Americans and the Federal Government.
Obama’s ascension to power represents the Third Wave of Social Liberalism in America, exploiting the so-called economic crisis to execute an equally far reaching Social Liberal program. What the Marxists in Russia or Latin America have tried to do in a matter of years, Social Liberals in Europe and America have waited decades and even over a century to push through.
With a free market economy and a long tradition of stubborn individualism, America represented the Social Liberal’s greatest challenge. The Open Conspiracy has slowly worked to undermine that, emphasizing the security of government collectivism, pushing community over country, class and race over citizenship, and collectivization based thinking over individualism. Meanwhile America’s cultural values and national standards have been chipped away at, making it possible for the vulgar adolescent charade that was the 2008 election to take place.
By embracing social liberalism, the party of Jefferson broke down the “wall of separation” between government and the individual that served as the Constitutional guarantee of civil liberties against a tyrannical government. Social liberalism meant the end of individual rights and the beginning of civil rights with government authority placed above all else. And by doing so the Democratic party replaced individual freedoms with an all encompassing bureaucracy, and liberty with socialism, and now with Obama, America stands on the verge of closing the gap between Wells and Lenin, between the Evolutionary Collectivist and the Marxist.

Nationalization, the Welfare State and Bureaucracies to control every aspect of human behavior

Nationalization, the Welfare State and Bureaucracies to control every aspect of human behavior are just some of the building blocks of the emerging “Great Society”, the socialism with a human face that Social Liberals have aimed at for well over a century. Unlike Lenin’s revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, our transition to a Marxist system was meant to be gradual and seamless. Like a lobster in a pot of boiling water, the temperature was being turned up slowly and gradually. Even now when banks are being nationalized and major automakers turned over to union ownership, it is mainly people over 40 who are even noticing that anything is wrong.
The Revolution as it turns out will not be brought to you by Coke, but by Pepsi. Flags will be waved, even though they are no longer American flags. A new symbol has been created, a new seal has been set and a new America is being planted over the protesting remains of the old. But the struggle remains the same.
The question is, will we choose to be free or slaves. Will we protect our freedom from government, or give up our freedom to government. Will we come out of the shadows of Obama and the Social Liberal revolution of 2008, or will a new Iron Curtain rise over the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Daniel Greenfield is a New York City writer and columnist. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and his articles appears at its Front Page Magazine site.
Daniel can be reached at: sultanknish@yahoo.com

NSA Spying on Americans

Do you think your phone calls are private? Watch this short set of videos and learn how all digital communications: phone, email, chat, web surfing, etc. have been systematically collected for at least 10 years by the NSA.  The first video is from CNN (approximately 1.5 minutes).

This second video is from AT&T Whistleblower Mark Klein.  He explains the secret room at AT&T only accessible by NSA cleared personnel. (Approximately 5.5 minutes.)

Read the transcript of an interview with Mark Klein on PBS back in 2007. The interview explains how splitters have been installed at all peering links on the backbone of the Internet.  The splitter siphon’s off a copy of all phone and Internet traffic?  Where does it go and what do they do with it?  Watch the next video as William Binney, an NSA whistle-blower and participant in the Steller Winds Project, explains how all the data is collected and used. (Approximately 8.5 minutes.)

William Binney is among a group of N.S.A. whistle-blowers, including Thomas A. Drake, who have each risked everything — their freedom, livelihoods and personal relationships — to warn Americans about the dangers of N.S.A. domestic spying; A top-secret program he says is broadly collecting Americans’ personal data.

If all of that is not enough to convince you, watch this interview with NSA Whistleblower Russell Tice as he explains that the NSA was spying on Supreme Court Judge Alito and then Senator Barrack Obama. You have to ask yourself, who is really running this country?

Read more about N.S.A. domestic spying: http://invisibler.com/the-program-interview-with-william-binney/
This is a very disturbing video about how our governmenthas been spying on US citizens.

As reported by Wired Magazine in March 2012, CIA Director/General Petraeus said we’ll spy on you through your dishwasher. See http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/petraeus-tv-remote/. This is how the new smart meter technology will be utilized. It’s a gateway to communicate with your smart appliances.

In addition, the FBI will be spending $1 Billion on face recognition technology which can be enhanced with images from Facebook and other social media see article here: http://rt.com/usa/news/fbi-recognition-system-ngi-640/.

The Patriot Act allows government agents to write their own search warrants without review by a judge and it’s illegal for you to even discuss with your attorney.  (Search YouTube for video presentation by Judge Andrew Napolitano regarding natural rights and the Patriot Act parts 1, 2, &3.) And again, under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, the provisions of the NDAA allow the federal government to arrest and detain U.S. citizens without ‘due process’ until the ‘end of hostilities’ on the order of the Executive Branch.  Without due process means, no judge, no jury, no lawyer.

When you combine the above you will see that we are losing our God given rights under natural law and under the Constitutional protections of the Bill of Rights. Specifically, the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments.  The right to freedom of speech and thought; the right to privacy and to be secure in our persons, houses, and papers; and the right to due process.  We are losing our system of checks and balances. We are moving away from the rule of law to the rule by men.

So, considering all of the above, there are two approaches.  We can either retreat and allow the controllers to continue
to implement a surveillance/police state tyranny.  Or, we can make a stand for liberty and use their own social media tools against them to make more people aware of what’s happening.  I for one will do the latter.  If we don’t stand up for our rights and freedoms, we will lose them.

“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

It’s My Constitution


 

“It’s My Constitution” is a lively, educational video that provides an entertaining overview of this founding document, and its importance to us today. Through a lively discussion, Travis, Christiana and Michael Loudermilk uncover the true intent of our Constitution, clarify some common misunderstandings and reveal its relevance to us today. Their father, Georgia Senator Barry Loudermilk, chimes in to provide insights into some of the key provisions of the Constitution.
 
Firm Reliance, Inc. was commissioned by the Georgia Department of Education, in recognition of the 225th anniversary of the adoption of the Constitution by the Constitutional Convention. It was produced by Georgia Public Broadcasting.

Memorandum of Law – The Authority of the County Sheriff

By: hawkiye; a member of AboveTopSecret.com

It is amazing to me that so many important laws and rulings have fallen into such obscurity that when you tell people about them they scoff or even  try and ridicule you. We wonder why the constitution is ignored so much it is simply because of a lack of knowledge by the people and even  the officers of the law and courts.

So I have put together this memorandum of law on the Authority of the County Sheriff where it derives from and why the county Sheriff could save America if he understands his oath to uphold the constitution and rises to the occasion. They could be the heroes of America if they do so.  Anyway without further delay here it is:

Memorandum of Law – The Authority of the County Sheriff

The County Sheriff is a long established icon for keeping the peace and administering the law. Not only in American Jurisprudence but also in English and UK jurisprudence and in history along with many other European nations and even India.

The Sheriff is the only Officer of the law that is duly Elected by the people and thus answers to them and no one else as will be shown by this memorandum. He is not appointed and therefore is directly chosen by the people as their duly elected representative and defender of their rights. This is a very important point that has been forgotten and largely lost in these modern times.

Therefore it is the Sheriffs duty to serve and protect those who have entrusted him with their delegated authority to keep the peace and protect their rights. This is a great responsibility and not to be taken lightly. It is the hope that this memorandum of law citing the law and Rulings of the Supreme court that we can reestablish the importance of this Sacred office and educate the people and the county Sheriffs to the awesome responsibility the office of Sheriff holds in protecting the freedoms of the people of his county.

Let us look at the law and some supreme court rulings on the matter:

U.S. Constitution, Article Six, Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;
and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
(The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution)

Here we have the US Constitution established as the supreme law of the land and the Judges in every state are bound by it. This is very important. All the state constitutions also very closely resemble the US Constitution. This means the Bill of Rights applies in every state and Judges and officers are bound by it and obligated to uphold these rights and take an oath to uphold the US Constitution.

Marbury v. Madison : 5 US 137 (1803):

“No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect,” “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law”,“Clearly, for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme Law was illogical, for certainly, the supreme Law would prevail over all other laws and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme Law would be the bases of all law and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law, it would bare no power to enforce, in would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court of law, no courts are bound to uphold it, and no Citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a near nullity or a fiction of law.”

Norton v. Shelby County 118 USR 425:

“An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protections, it creates no office. It is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it has never been passed.”

Here in Marbury v. Madison with Norton v. Shelby corroborating the supreme court has ruled that if any law is passed that comes into conflict with the Constitution it is null and void from the minute it has been passed and  there is no obligation to obey nor power to enforce and it is as if it had never existed. This is very important for Peace officers to understand and adhere to. These rulings have never been over turned and are landmark cases in American Jurisprudence.

Title 5, US Code Sec. 556(d), Sec. 557, Sec.706:

Courts lose jurisdiction if they do not follow Due Process Law.

Title 18, US Code Sec.2381:

In the presence of two or more witnesses of the same overt act, or in a open court of law, if you
fail to timely move to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and honor your oath of
office, you are subject to the charge of capital felony treason.

This is very important for all officers of the law to understand for their oaths of office are to uphold the Constitution. This is explicitly to protect the people and their rights from being abused. It is hoped that all officers think and ponder deeply on this especially in this information age when errant officers whose actions have reflected badly on the rest have been broadcast nationally. Further more officers should reflect on  any acts they enforce and whether they are constitutional. As we shall see  in more rulings it is not just for the courts to decide as many now believe.

16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 97:

“That the constitution should receive a literal interpretation in favor of the Citizen, is especially true, with respect to those provisions which were designed to safeguard the liberty and security of the Citizen in regard to person and property.”

Bary v. United States – 273 US 128

“Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor of
the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary”

We the people are the express beneficiaries of  the US Constitution.

Mudook v. Penn. 319 US 1051943)

“A state may NOT impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution
… No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it.”

This is another land mark case. We see here the supreme court as ruled that no state can charge a fee to exercise a right nor can it convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and fee for it. This is violated daily now in America. This ruling has not been overturned. Violation of this provision happens largely because both the people and officers are unaware of this ruling and its daily violation has become a matter of routine therefore tolerated as a necessary evil so to speak. One wonders how such an important Supreme court ruling could fall into such obscurity?

And further:
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham Al. 373 US 2621962)

“If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, you can ignore the license and a fee and engage the right with impunity.”

Here the supreme court has ruled that such acts can be ignored with impunity. Again how does such an important landmark case fall into obscurity? Isn’t it time for Americans to rediscover their history and rights?

Now let us look at a specific landmark Case brought by two County Sheriffs against the Federal government and the important implications of this case in regards to the County Sheriff’s Authority and who he answers to. These Sheriff’s were Sheriff Jay Printz of Montana and Sheriff Richard Mack of Arizona.  This was in regards to the enforcement of the Brady Bill by Local Sheriff’s and their refusal to do so however its rulings extend far beyond just that. This clarifies where the Sheriffs authority is derived from and that its the people who elected him and his duty to use his authority protect their rights.

Printz v. United States (95-1478), 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

“We adhere to that principle today, and conclude categorically, as we concluded categorically in New York: “The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.” Id., at 188. The mandatory obligation imposed on CLEOs to perform background checks on prospective handgun purchasers plainly runs afoul of that rule.”

“Not only do the enactments of the early Congresses, as far as we are aware, contain no evidence of an assumption that the Federal Government may command the States’ executive power in the absence of a particularized constitutional authorization, they contain some indication of precisely the opposite assumption.”

Here the court clearly states the Federal government has no authority in the County Sheriff’s Jurisdiction and even states that the opposite of having any authority is the case. This is significant as we will see in further rulings.

…the Guarantee Clause, Art. IV, §4, which “presupposes the continued existence of the states and . . . those means and instrumentalities which are the creation of their sovereign and reserved rights,” Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U.S. 405, 414-415 (1938). Residual state sovereignty was also implicit, of course, in the Constitution’s conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discrete, enumerated ones, Art. I, §8, which implication was rendered express by the Tenth Amendment’s assertion that “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Here the Court upholds the Sovereignty of the States and the people reaffirming the tenth Amendment  and even quoting part of it and that there are rights the people have that are not listed and they are every bit as binding as those listed in the Bill of Rights.

And now for perhaps the most important part of this ruling:

***”The Constitution thus contemplates that a State’s government will represent and remain accountable to its own citizens. See New York, supra, at 168-169; United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 576-577 (1995) (Kennedy, J., concurring). Cf. Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 644 (1982) (“the State has no legitimate interest in protecting nonresident[s]“). As Madison expressed it: ” The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” The Federalist No. 39, at 245. [n.11]“***

Read that again if you will!  Local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy and are not subject to the General authority any more then it is subject to them within its own sphere. Did you hear that? The Sheriff is not subject to the state authority nor the federal Authority within his own sphere anymore then they are to him!!! That means the Sheriff is the highest officer of the law in his jurisdiction and the only authority he answers too is the People! That means he has the authority to protect his county from federal encroachment and enforcement of unconstitutional acts statutes and polices.

Now to any Sheriffs who may be reading this do you see your awesome responsibility of the authority that has been conferred on you? Will you protect the people of your county from Federal agents who enforce unconstitutional laws now knowing your authority? Especially since the Supreme court has ruled in several cases (and none of them have been over turned) that an unconstitutional law is null and void from inception and is as if it had never been passed? Please dear Sheriff’s think and ponder long and hard on this and resolve to uphold your oaths! We are either a nation of laws or we are not!

let us look at a few more provisions of this Land mark ruling

This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty. “Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.” Gregory, supra, at 458. To quote Madison once again:  “In the compound republic of America, the power [delegated] by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” The Federalist No. 51, at 323.

***”When a “La[w] . . . for carrying into Execution” the Commerce Clause violates the principle of state sovereignty reflected in the various constitutional provisions we mentioned earlier, supra, at 19-20, it is not a Law . . . proper for carrying into Execution the Commerce Clause,” and is thus, in the words of The Federalist, “merely an act of usurpation” which “deserves to be treated as such.”***

Again we have reiteration that any unconstitutional act is not law and should be treated as such from inception. There is no need to wait for a court ruling on the law we already have the court rulings many of which our listed in this memorandum.

“Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed.
It is so ordered.”

www.law.cornell.edu…

Obviously the point is now made with no room for misunderstanding. A link is provided to the case if one wishes to read the entire case. Also Sheriff Richard Mack has written a book on his experience and discovery of the importance of the office of Sheriff called  “County Sheriff Americas Last Hope” which everyone is strongly encouraged to read especially Sheriff’s. sheriffmack.com…

In conclusion here is a partial list of Sheriffs who have exercised their authority in their counties and prevented the federal government from enforcing unconstitutional statutes:

Sheriff Jay Printz Montana
Sheriff Richard Mack Arizona
Sheriff Dave Mattis Wyoming
Sheriff Gary Aman Idaho
Sheriff Tony DeMeo Arizona

There are more and one can do an internet search on any of their names to learn more.

Sheriffs who know and understand their authority really are Americas last hope and it is gratifying to see more and more of them speaking out and affirming our constitutional rights to keep and bear arms  during this time. It is our hope that this memorandum of law affirming that they have authority to prevent federal agents from enforcing unconstitutional acts will embolden them to rise to the occasion. Please forward to any and all Sheriffs nation wide and let them know the law and the People are on their side if they are willing to uphold their oaths of office!

Source: hawkiye; a member of AboveTopSecret.com

OPPOSITE CONSCIOUSNESS – Part 6

By Erik Garces, February 9, 2013

Concluding the series:
I’m going to take you deep into the rabbit’s hole. This is NOT for the unaware, the sheep who are still asleep. It may even go over the heads of some of those who are awake. As always, don’t take my word for it: do your own research and draw conclusions
that make logical sense to you.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
There is a tremendous amount of debate over firearms rights, and proposed legislation for what advocates call “gun control”. I’m not trying to repeat what’s already going on in the echo chamber. There are plenty of unawakened people who are well
enough informed to successfully fight that battle. Nor will I analyze the serious psy-op being conducted in the aftermath of the school shooting in Connecticut.
In my ever continuing quest to enlighten as many people as possible to use their own mind to think for themselves, I am offering here an opposite consciousness analysis of what’s really going on in a larger sense.
The system absolutely must not permit you to think outside of their controlled argument. It’s always been framed in the confines of Democrat vs. Republican and their associated value systems. Let us never forget that the purpose of the modern
monopolized press is not to inform but to generate and maintain the consent of the governed. Mostly by promoting the premise that the State is necessary and benevolent. We’re fed endless debate over policy and personalities but we’re never permitted to discuss the source of the problems: the system itself.
To read the complete series, start here:

Advancing Liberty in 2013: Ten Rules of Thumb

FEBRUARY 01, 2013 by LAWRENCE W. REED

“A New Year’s resolution,” the old wisecrack goes, “is something that goes in one year and out the other.” True enough for most of us, most of the time. So when 2013 got underway, I decided to skip the resolution ritual. Instead, I planned to work harder, longer, and smarter this year on behalf of something I can’t imagine life without—liberty.
As indispensable as liberty is to the progress of humanity, its future is never assured. Indeed, on most fronts, freedom has been in retreat for years—its light flickering against the winds of ignorance, irresponsibility, short-term gratification, and power lust. That’s why it’s all the more important that those of us who believe in liberty become more effective spokespersons.

The Rules of Thumb

Toward that end, I offer the well-worn “top ten” list. These rules of thumb do not appear in any particular order. So I leave it to you, Dear Reader, to decide which ones are more important. (Because it’s not meant to be a final word on the matter, I also invite readers to add to the list.)

1. Get motivated. Liberty is more than a happy circumstance. It’s a moral imperative, worthy of every ounce of passion that good people can muster. It’s not just about getting keyed up in an election year, or responding to some issue of the day. It’s always the difference between choice and coercion, between living your life or others living it for you (and at your expense). If liberty is lost, it may never be restored in your time or in that of your children and grandchildren. For solving problems, avoiding conflict, and bringing people together, there’s no worse course than politics and force, and no better path than liberty for peaceful exchange and cooperation to flourish.

2. Learn. More precisely, never stop learning! To be an effective persuader, there’s no good substitute for commanding the facts and the foundations. Know our ideas backwards and forwards. You can never read or listen to too much economics, history, or philosophy to be the best persuader in your neighborhood. Let the other side talk in bumper stickers. Come armed with substance as opposed to slogans.

3. Be optimistic. It’s tiring and disheartening to hear the defeatists talk like this: “It’s over. The Republic is lost. There’s no turning back. Our goose is cooked. I’m leaving the country.” What’s the point of such talk? It certainly can’t be to inspire. Pessimism is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Pessimists only disarm themselves and dispirit others; there’s nothing to be won by it. If you truly believe all is lost, the best thing to do is defer to the possibility that you may be wrong and let the optimists lead the way. (That means leaving pessimism at the door.)

4. Use humor. Even serious business needs moments of levity. Seasoning your case with humor can make it more appealing, more human. If you can’t smile when you’re making the case for liberty—if you can’t evoke a smile or a chuckle from the person you’re talking to—then you’re on the way to losing the battle. Humor breaks the ice.

5. Raise questions. You don’t have to lecture every potential convert. Learn to deploy the Socratic method, especially when you’re conversing with a rigid statist ideologue. Most of the time, such people hold the views they do not because they’re well acquainted with libertarian thought and have rejected it, but because they just don’t know our side. A skilled line of questioning can often prompt a person to think about their premises in ways they never have before.

6. Show you care. It’s been said that people don’t care what you know if they don’t know that you care. Focus on real people when you argue for liberty. Laws and policies inimical to liberty produce so much more than bad numbers; they crush the dreams of real people who want to improve their lives and the lives of those they love. Cite examples of people and what happened to them when government got in the way of their progress. That said, don’t dwell on the negative. Be just as generous in citing examples of what specific people have accomplished when they’ve been given the freedom to try.

7. Seize the moral high ground. Liberty is the one socioeconomic arrangement that demands high standards of moral character. It cannot survive if people are widely dishonest, impatient, arrogant, irresponsible, short-term focused, and disrespectful of the lives, rights and property of others. This truth speaks volumes about the moral superiority of liberty over all other “systems.” Humanity is composed of unique individuals; it is not an amorphous, collective lump to be pushed around by elitists who fancy themselves our masters and planners. Any arrangement that purées our distinct lives in a collectivist blender is a moral offense. Use this argument to strike at the very heart of any opponent’s case.

8. Develop an appealing persona. A libertarian who knows all the facts and theories can still be repulsive and ineffective if he’s condescending, vengeful, coarse or crude, self-righteous, or often in “attack” mode. This is why Dale Carnegie’s classic, How To Win Friends And Influence People, should be on every libertarian’s “must-read” list. Do you want to change the world or just beat your breast? Talk to others or talk to yourself?

And slow down on the negativity! Some libertarians only talk about bad news. These are the folks who see nothing good happening anywhere. This attitude comes across as if they’re telling you, “Stop having fun. The only good news is that there isn’t any. If you think there is good news, we’ll tell you why it isn’t.” This attitude wears badly and rarely wins converts. Heroes and heroic stories are all around us; don’t ignore them by dwelling on the scoundrels and the disappointments.

9. Don’t demand total and immediate acceptance. Have you ever run into a libertarian who lets you know that unless you fully confess all your intellectual sins and repent on the spot, you’re a pariah? The history of progress in ideas provides few examples of wrong-on-everything transforming into right-on-everything in a momentary leap. We must be patient, inviting, and understanding. Know when the cracks are appearing in an opponent’s wall and give him room to tear it down himself. Remember that all of us hold views today that we didn’t accept in our past. None of us came out of the womb with a copy of The Road to Serfdom in our hands.

10. Make allies, not enemies. A handful of cloistered, ineffective—but noisy—libertarians fancy themselves keepers of the faith. They behave as though the greater enemy is not those who embrace no libertarian precepts at all, but rather those who embrace many, but not all, libertarian precepts. So when they find a fellow libertarian who once held different views, or departs from orthodoxy on an issue or two, they start to vilify him. It makes them feel good, but works against the larger cause. If we say we want to make the world a better, more libertarian place, we can’t make it painful for anyone to move in the right direction.

ABOUT LAWRENCE W. REED
Lawrence W. (“Larry”) Reed became president of FEE in 2008. Prior to that, he was a founder and president for twenty years of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Michigan. He also taught Economics full-time and chaired the Department of Economics at Northwood University in Michigan from 1977 to 1984.

Read more: http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/advancing-liberty-in-2013-ten-rules-of-thumb#ixzz2JfUHxdYB

Where Does The Hatred Of Constitutionalism Come From?

Brandon Smith
Alt Market
Jan 10, 2013

The Constitution of the United States is an undeniably powerful document. So powerful in fact, that it took establishment elitists with aspirations of globalized governance over a century to diminish the American people’s connection to it. It’s been a long time coming, but in the new millennium, there is now indeed a subsection of the masses that not only have no relationship to our founding roots, they actually despise those of us who do!

There are a number of reasons for this dangerous development in our culture: A public school system that rarely if ever teaches children about the revolution, the founders, constitutional liberty, or the virtues of individualism in general. A mainstream media apparatus that has regurgitated endless anti-constitutional shlock for decades, attacking any person or group that presents a freedom oriented view. And a governmental structure that has become so corrupt, so openly criminal, that they ignore all aspects of constitutional law without regard, rarely feeling the need to explain themselves. As a people, we are surrounded daily by the low droning wash-talk of denigration and disdain for our principled foundations. The wretched ghosts of collectivism and tyranny mumble in our ears from birth to death. It’s truly a miracle that every man and woman in this nation has not succumbed to the mind numbing hypnotism…

However, our propaganda soaked environment is not the ONLY cause of our self destructive society; many people are themselves to blame. Severe character flaws and psychological imbalances have left some open to suggestion, manipulation, and fraud. Their hatred, though fueled in part by the socialization of the establishment, is still theirs to own.

The brutal ignorance on display in mainstream circles against the liberty-minded needs to be addressed. In my view, the American public is being conditioned to see us as a convenient “enemy” which they can use to project all their internal grief and woe. Our country is on the verge of collapse, economically, politically, and philosophically. Corporatized elements of our government and the financial high priests of the international banking sector are behind this calamity, and of course, they don’t plan to take responsibility. Who better to demonize as the catalyst for all the pain that is coming than the only people who have the awareness and the means to stand against the catastrophe?

There is no doubt in my mind that a great conflict is near, between those of us who value liberty and constitutional protections, and those who would destroy them. This battle is unlikely to be solved with words. The anti-constitutionalist rhetoric is becoming so ruthless, so malicious, that it can only lead to a hardening of our own hearts, and an equally forceful response.

Most of us have seen all the mainstream magazines with front page headlines calling for the retirement of the Constitution. Most of us know about the suggestions by media entities and political opportunists (including Joe Biden) for Barack Obama to bypass congress and the Constitution, implementing possible gun restriction, registration, and confiscation through “executive order” like a common dictator. There is an obviously brash and violent effort amongst political players today to mold our government into a godlike entity. But, this is not what concerns me most. What concerns me is the subversive boiling poison that is leaking into our culture at the local level, creating freedom hating zombies. Take, for instance, the anti-constitutionalist crusade by a New Hampshire representative against the New Hampshire Free State Project:

What causes someone to hate freedom-loving people so much that they would destroy their own liberties just to drive us away?  Is this not cutting off their own nose just to spite OUR face?  Or, do they even see the loss of freedom for themselves as a bad thing?

And how about Marine Corporal Joshua Boston, who after sending a letter to Dianne Feinstein stating he would not comply with unconstitutional gun restrictions, is now receiving death threats because of his membership in the NRA:

What is the source of the hatred towards constitutionalists?  Where does it originate?  Here are just some of the personal triggers and methodologies within the mind of the anti-freedom advocate which I believe have sullied them beyond repair…

The Anti-Constitutionalist Suffers From An Inferiority Complex

I have found in my role as a Liberty Movement analyst and through literally tens of thousands of debates that anti-constitution advocates are, for the most part, of limited intelligence.  These are the average useful idiots who know little of history, politics, economics, etc., but feel the desperate need to appear as though they are experts on everything.  This usually results in constant attempts to show off for anyone who will pay attention, usually with sound-bites they heard on the nightly news coupled with remedial attacks against the character of those who dare to step outside the mainstream.

The problem is that deep down, they know they are not very bright.  And so, they seek to always travel with the herd on every issue, for if they cannot be smart, they can at least be accepted.  Ironically, if constitutionalism was being pushed by the mainstream, they would automatically change their tune.

It is probable that they have run into a Liberty Movement proponent (most of whom are well versed in history, politics, and economics) at least once in their lives, went in for an attack, and were utterly destroyed.  Their inferiority exposed, they learn to detest anything associated with constitutionalism.

The Anti-Constitutionalist Does Not Like The Idea Of A Law He Cannot Use To His Advantage

Not all anti-constitutionalists are dense.  A limited few are very intelligent, but morally bankrupt.  The Constitution is not just a legal document; it is also an emotional and spiritual document.  If one does not have a relationship with his own conscience and the concept of natural law, then he will discover little in the founding ideals of America that he agrees with.  Some people (usually corrupt politicians and judges) see the law as a weapon to be used against their ideological opponents, whereas constitutionalists see the law as a shield to protect us from such despots.  The Constitution and the Bill Of Rights are both designed to protect our Absolute Freedoms.  That is, freedoms that are inborn and which no person or government is qualified to give as a gift, or take as if they are a privilege.

Nothing angers those who seek power more than a legal framework which they are not allowed to touch, or shift, or “tweak” to suit their private ambitions.

Constitutional protections are not meant to be subject to the “buts” and “what ifs” common in the lesser legal world.  They are not open to debate.  Our rights are not subject to the demands of the so-called “majority”.  Our rights are eternal, and unchangeable.  Anti-constitutionalists attempt to work around the absolutes of the document by implementing subversive law backed by flawed logic.  But, a law which destroys previous constitutional rights is not a law which any individual American is required to follow.  Even an amendment that undermines our civil liberties is not legally binding.  The freedoms put forth in the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights are SET IN STONE (and this includes the right to bear arms in common use of the military of our day).  They cannot be undone without destroying the very fabric of the republic.

The Anti-Constitutionalist Hates Those Who Go Against The Tide, Even If The Tide Is Drowning Us All

Some people are predisposed to be followers.  They do not want to take responsibility for their futures or even their own actions.  They do not like questions.  They do not like dilemmas.  They want to be left to wallow in their own private prisons, where they are comfortably enslaved.

I remember participating in an End The Fed rally in Pittsburgh in early 2008 which was, like most activist rallies, meant to expose the uneducated public to ideas they may not have heard before.  I found it interesting that around a quarter of the people who strolled by our picket line automatically sneered, as if by reflex, even though they had probably never heard our position, or even heard of the Fed.  It dawned on me that they were not angered by our political or economic views.  Instead they were angered by the mere fact that we were there.  We were vocal, and defiant, and a disruption to their daily robot-like routine.  They hated us because we were ruining their fantasy of disconnectedness.

Constitutionalists are predominantly individualists.  We do not cater to collectivist fairy tales.  We do not seek to roll with the tide just for the sake of finding our “place” within the machine.  We do not care about “fitting in” with the mainstream.  This is often confounding and infuriating to those who have labored their whole lives to please “the group”.  They accuse us of being “isolationists” in response.  What they do not comprehend is that illusion and delusion have isolated THEM, while the truth has brought constitutionalists together.

Constitutionalists Are Not Politically Correct

For the past few decades our society has become engrossed with the idea of “proper language and behavior”.  Of course, their idea of “proper” usually involves ignoring the reality of a thing.  For a Constitutionalist, a spade is a spade, and we tend to call it like we see it.  We don’t bother ourselves with superficial niceties that get in the way of legitimate debate or legitimate change.  We are not “pleasant” and tolerant with those who would kill our freedoms.   We do not pull punches.

We are direct, and sometimes, brutal in our analysis.

In some parts of the Western world (especially the UK) language has become a game, a game of self censorship and deceit.  This game has made its way to the United States in recent years, and Constitutionalists don’t play.  We know that every overtly collectivist society begins with the fear of open expression.  And so, our blunt honesty rattles those invested in the PC culture.  Their ultimate and ideal revenge would be to see us painted as social malcontents; like people who smoke in public, or wear a mullet…

Constitutionalists Are Passionate In Their Beliefs

A large percentage of men and women in this world have never been truly passionate about anything.  They simply eat, breath, and defecate their way through life, scrounging about the squalor of a broken system for whatever brief moments of comfort they can find.  They have never explored their inner workings or suffered the hardship of individuation.  They have never been forced to seek out an inner strength, a personal treasure, which guides them to a greater purpose.  Everything they think they believe in has been conditioned into them.  Their uniqueness is suppressed, and their characters shallow.  They have never loved an idea, or a principle.

Constitutionalists LOVE liberty and the mechanics of freedom.  We love the values of a sovereign republic and the opportunities that such a system provides when collectivists are removed from the picture.  There is no question or doubt in our minds; we would fight and die to protect the pillars of the Constitution.

When confronted with this kind of passion, the average person is shocked and sometimes appalled.  The idea of unshakable will is frightening to them.  They are so used to compromising in every aspect of their lives that when they run into an uncompromising man, they reel in horror.

That which they see as “fanaticism” is instead an excitement, a boundless joy, a fervent desire to protect something universal and precious.  What they see as “extreme”, we see as essential.

The Anti-Constitutionalist Thinks He Knows What’s Best For All Of Us

Most people who seek to deny and destroy constitutional liberties tend to lean towards a collectivist philosophy.  They are usually socialist, or a variation (Marxist, Fascist), and can be professed members of either major political party.  They believe that their vision of a perfect cultural system is the “correct” vision.  They see the Constitution as “archaic” or “outdated”.  They see it as nothing more than an obstacle to progress which must be toppled.

The “perfect world” that the collectivist strives for functions on centralization: the removal of options until there are no choices left for the common man except those which the collectivist wants him to have.  This world usually suffers from limited free speech, limited civic participation, zero tolerance for dissent, near zero privacy from government eyes, a completely disarmed populous, unaccountable leadership, and the encouragement of informer networks and betrayal for profit.  The goal is to intimidate the whole of a nation into dependence on the system, until every necessity from food to self defense is parceled out by the state.

Collectivists understand one thing very clearly; an America without the Constitution is destined to become a centralized country.

They will, of course, claim this is a gross exaggeration.  They will claim that this time will be different.  That the collectivist experiments of the past, which produced nothing but destruction and genocide of their own populations, are nothing similar to what they are espousing.  They will pretend as if their vision is new, progressive, and far more practical than the vision of the Founding Fathers.   In the end though, all they are promoting is a system as old as history; the feudal kingdom.  The mercantile oligarchy.  The militarized state.

At the height of their vicious sabotage of the republic, they will demonize our very heritage, claiming that it was a sham.  That we were never able to “live up to our beliefs anyway”.  That we are “hypocrites”, and this somehow negates the reverence we give to the Constitution.  Unfortunately for them, we know better.  We understand that the principles of the Constitution are not something we grasp at all times, but rather, something to which we aspire to, and grow into as our nation matures.  They require patience, and wisdom.  They force us to question our own “brilliance”, and our own egos.  They anchor us, preventing us from being swept away in the storms of fear.

There has never been and there will never be a better method of law and governance than that method which defends the individualism and freedom of the people.  The most fantastic of human accomplishments, in technology as well as in philosophy, spring from the nurturing waters of liberty.  Free minds and hearts create.  They refuse to be contained, and the Constitution gives us license to ensure that they will never be contained, even to the point of revolution.

To deny constitutionalism, is to endorse oppression.  May we forever rebel against the agents of “progress”.  May we forever give them something to hate.

http://www.alt-market.com/articles/1265-where-does-the-hatred-of-constitutionalism-come-from