Posts tagged King George
Bundy Ranch: The Nevada Constitution and Neo-Slavery
Published by NextNewsNetwork
Former Libertarian Party Presidential Nominee Michael Badnarik joins Gary Franchi to discuss the Bundy Ranch Federal Standoff and analyze the Nevada Constitution’s wording that may surprise you.
Michael Badnarik’s website: ConstitutionPreservation.org
Former Presidential Candidate, Libertarian Author, and Constitutional Scholar, Michael Badnarick sits down with Gary Franchi to respond to the recent Gun Grab Hysteria.
More about WHDT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHDT
Like us on Facebook: http://Facebook.com/NextNewsNet
Follow us on Twitter: http://Twitter.com/NextNewsNet
By Blake Taylore
Liberty, freedom, and owning oneself are always good things. How humans lost the acknowledgement and community support of their unalienable right to exist on earth, and own themselves is probably lost in history. And yet, there were always people, throughout history, who understood their own value as individuals, and how they had a right to own their lives, while deciding their own destinies, making their own choices, and keeping what they made. They understood nature’s laws; the human right to own themselves, and keep the fruit of their labor. They understood unalienable rights to be a gift from nature that every human can claim just for being born.
Unfortunately most people, early on, were tricked out of this innate gift of owning themselves. Yet, throughout the ages enlightened, and freedom loving humans fought to bring this truth to light, and to have their unalienable rights be acknowledged, and supported by their communities. Some freedom lovers fought for unalienable rights with their pen, some within their legal structure, and some by the sword. They all fought to have human-made governments obey the laws of nature that governed their unalienable rights.
But it wasn’t until the birth of America, when humans, educated with book and instinctual knowledge of what was right and wrong, would stand together, using both the pen and the sword, to build a nation with a foundational base of nature’s laws. Ever since the Declaration of Independence, America has been a symbol of freedom that many in the rest of the world looked to as a beacon of hope for liberty in their lives. Unfortunately, here in America, once again, throughout the recent decades, those who have based their lives on greed and power, buried the principles of nature’s inalienable rights, enslaving all Americans, stripping us of our privacy, dignity, rights, and wealth. We now all jump as high as TSA, FEMA, the now militarized police, or any other federal agency tells us to, without a blink of the eye. America has let the world down.
For the past few weeks, I have been writing in this column about the government’s use of drones and challenging their constitutionality on Fox News Channel where I work. I once asked on air what Thomas Jefferson would have done if — had drones existed at the time — King George III had sent drones to peer inside the bedroom windows of Monticello. I suspect that Jefferson and his household would have trained their muskets on the drones and taken them down. I offer this historical anachronism as a hypothetical only, not as one who is urging the use of violence against the government.
Nevertheless, what Jeffersonians are among us today? When drones take pictures of us on our private property and in our homes, and the government uses the photos as it wishes, what will we do about it? Jefferson understood that when the government assaults our privacy and dignity, it is the moral equivalent of violence against us. The folks who hear about this, who either laugh or groan, cannot find it humorous or boring that their every move will be monitored and photographed by the government.
Don’t believe me that this is coming? The photos that the drones will take may be retained and used or even distributed to others in the government so long as the “recipient is reasonably perceived to have a specific, lawful governmental function” in requiring them. And for the first time since the Civil War, the federal government will deploy military personnel inside the United States and publicly acknowledge that it is deploying them “to collect information about U.S. persons.”
It gets worse. If the military personnel see something of interest from a drone, they may apply to a military judge or “military commander” for permission to conduct a physical search of the private property that intrigues them. And any “incidentally acquired information” can be retained or turned over to local law enforcement. What’s next? Prosecutions before military tribunals in the U.S.?
The quoted phrases above are extracted from a now-public 30-page memorandum issued by President Obama’s secretary of the Air Force on April 23, 2012. The purpose of the memorandum is stated as “balancing … obtaining intelligence information … and protecting individual rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution….” Note the primacy of intelligence gathering over freedom protection, and note the peculiar use of the word “balancing.”
US Military Issues Warning to Ron Paul Supporters – But They’ll Never Stop us. March on!
Uploaded by AdamKokesh on Feb 16, 2012
The full text of the email can be found at:
Please purchase your tickets to the after Party! http://www.eventbrite.com/event/2857227043
MORE INFORMATION HERE: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/political-pro-con/2012/fe…
Additional information on the event located on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/events/347123448645268/
For those wishing to show support but are unable to attend in Washington D.C. on President’s Day, might I suggest supporting by this effort visiting the link below and donating to the choice of our troops!
Now more than every we need the Champion of the Constitution!
Please visit Ron Paul’s official campaign site by following the link below and donate today!
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
Before the U.S. House of Representatives
May 22, 2007
In the Name of Patriotism (Who are the Patriots?)
For some, patriotism is “the last refuge of a scoundrel.” For others, it means dissent against a government’s abuse of the people’s rights.
I have never met a politician in Washington, or any American for that matter, who chose to be called “unpatriotic”. Nor have I met anyone who did not believe he wholeheartedly supported our troops wherever they may be.
What I have heard all too frequently from various individuals is sharp accusations that because their political opponents disagree with them on the need for foreign military entanglements, they were “unpatriotic, un-American, evil doers deserving contempt.”
The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George. I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power. The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility, and out of self interest — for himself, his family, and the future of his country — to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state.
Resistance need not be violent, but the civil disobedience that might be required involves confrontation with the state and invites possible imprisonment.
Peaceful non-violent revolutions against tyranny have been every bit as successful as those involving military confrontation. Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. achieved great political successes by practicing non-violence, yet they themselves suffered physically at the hands of the state.
But whether the resistance against government tyrants is non-violent or physically violent, the effort to overthrow state oppression qualifies as true patriotism.
True patriotism today has gotten a bad name — at least from the government and the press. Those who now challenge the unconstitutional methods of imposing an income tax on us, or force us to use a monetary system designed to serve the rich at the expense of the poor, are routinely condemned. These American patriots are sadly looked down upon by many. They are never praised as champions of liberty as Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. have been.
Liberals, who withhold their taxes as a protest against war, are vilified as well — especially by conservative statists.
Unquestioned loyalty to the state is especially demanded in times of war. Lack of support for a war policy is said to be unpatriotic. Arguments against a particular policy that endorses a war once it’s started, are always said to be endangering the troops in the field. This, they blatantly claim, is unpatriotic and all dissent must stop. Yet it is dissent from government policies that defines the true patriot and champion of liberty.
It is conveniently ignored that the only authentic way to best support the troops is to keep them out of dangerous, undeclared, no-win wars that are politically inspired. Sending troops off to war for reasons that are not truly related to national security — and for that matter may even damage our security — is hardly a way to “patriotically” support the troops.
Who are the true patriots: those who conform or those who protest against wars without purpose? How can it be said that blind support for war, no matter how misdirected the policy, is the duty of the patriot?