Today, February 22nd,  is the 70th anniversary of Sophie Scholl’s death.  In times like these, it is important to remember those who stood up with conscience peacefully against  horrors.

This former Hitler youth who had quit in order to become a nursery school teacher, helped found the White Rose group which advocated through leaflets and pamphlets the restoration of democracy and social justice in Germany.  Which in 1942, after arrests, genocide and worse within Nazi Germany controlled Europe.

Words from the White Rose leaflets included,

“We want to try and show that everyone is in a position to contribute to the overthrow of the system. It can be done only by the cooperation of many convinced, energetic people – people who are agreed as to the means they must use. We have no great number of choices as to the means. The meaning and goal of passive resistance is to topple National Socialism, and in this struggle we must not recoil from our course, any action, whatever its nature. A victory of fascist Germany in this war would have immeasurable, frightful consequences.”

On February 18th, 1943 the group threw leaflets out of a university window to students below, a Nazi Student turned them in, only four days later, a judge had found them guilty of Sedition and had them executed by guillotine.

According to Sophie’s cellmate, her last words were, “It is such a splendid sunny day, and I have to go. But how many have to die on the battlefield in these days, how many young, promising lives. What does my death matter if by our acts thousands are warned and alerted.”

Sadly, when there are drone strikes, bombings, war being waged across the world, from the Middle East, Africa, South America and add into that the possible formation of oppressive governments completely unaccountable to its own population,  it is clear we live in important times.

• Will those with a conscience speak up if horrors are being accomplished?
• Will people speak up against Genetically Engineered crops?
• Will people speak up against the elections with questionable rigging?
• Will people speak up against Fluoridation which forcibly “medicates” people?
• Will people stand up to increased taxation, carbon taxes and systems which are meant to harm whole economies?

Today there is plenty for people to get educated on and speak up against. If a young woman of the age of 22 in the height of Nazi Germany can stand up for noble beliefs, can’t you?

- Peace, Love & Apple Pie

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERschollS.htm

RIP Sophie Scholl 22nd February 1943 « Madame Guillotine.

After stonewalling for more than a year federal judges and ordinary citizens who sought the revelation of its secret legal research justifying the presidential use of drones to kill persons overseas — even Americans — claiming the research was so sensitive and so secret that it could not be revealed without serious consequences, the government sent a summary of its legal memos to an NBC newsroom earlier this week.

This revelation will come as a great surprise, and not a little annoyance, to U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon, who heard many hours of oral argument during which the government predicted gloom and doom if its legal research were subjected to public scrutiny. She very reluctantly agreed with the feds, but told them she felt caught in “a veritable Catch-22,” because the feds have created “a thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret.”

She was writing about President Obama killing Americans and refusing to divulge the legal basis for claiming the right to do so. Now we know that basis.

The undated and unsigned 16-page document leaked to NBC refers to itself as a Department of Justice white paper. Its logic is flawed, its premises are bereft of any appreciation for the values of the Declaration of Independence and the supremacy of the Constitution, and its rationale could be used to justify any breaking of any law by any “informed, high-level official of the U.S. government.”

The quoted phrase is extracted from the memo, which claims that the law reposes into the hands of any unnamed “high-level official,” not necessarily the president, the lawful power to decide when to suspend constitutional protections guaranteed to all persons and kill them without any due process whatsoever. This is the power claimed by kings and tyrants. It is the power most repugnant to American values. It is the power we have arguably fought countless wars to prevent from arriving here. Now, under Obama, it is here.

This came to a boiling point when Obama dispatched CIA drones to kill New Mexico-born and al-Qaida-affiliated Anwar al-Awlaki while he was riding in a car in a desert in Yemen in September 2011. A follow-up drone, also dispatched by Obama, killed Awlaki’s 16-year-old Colorado-born son and his American friend. Awlaki’s American father sued the president in federal court in Washington, D.C., trying to prevent the killing. Justice Department lawyers persuaded a judge that the president always follows the law, and besides, without any evidence of presidential law breaking, the elder Awlaki had no case against the president. Within three months of that ruling, the president dispatched his drones and the Awlakis were dead.

This spawned follow-up lawsuits, in one of which McMahon gave her reluctant ruling.

Then the white paper appeared. It claims that if an American is likely to trigger the use of force 10,000 miles from here, and he can’t easily be arrested, he can be murdered with impunity. This notwithstanding state and federal laws that expressly prohibit non-judicial killing, an executive order signed by every president from Gerald Ford to Obama prohibiting American officials from participating in assassinations, the absence of a declaration of war against Yemen, treaties expressly prohibiting this type of killing, and the language of the Declaration, which guarantees the right to live, and the Constitution, which requires a jury trial before the government can deny that right.

The president cannot lawfully order the killing of anyone, except according to the Constitution and federal law. Under the Constitution, he can only order killing using the military when the U.S. has been attacked or when an attack is so imminent that delay would cost innocent lives. He can also order killing using the military in pursuit of a declaration of war enacted by Congress.

Unless Obama knows that an attack from Yemen on our shores is imminent, he’d be hard-pressed to argue that a guy in a car in the desert 10,000 miles from here — no matter his intentions — poses a threat so imminent to the U.S. that he needs to be killed on the spot in order to save the lives of Americans who would surely die during the time it would take to declare war on the country that harbors him, or during the time it would take to arrest him. Under no lawful circumstances may he use CIA agents for killing. Surely, CIA agents can use deadly force defensively to protect themselves and their assets, but they may not use it offensively. Federal laws against murder apply to the president and to all federal agents and personnel in their official capacities, wherever they go on the planet.

Obama has argued that he can kill Americans whose deaths he believes will keep us all safer, without any due process whatsoever. No law authorizes that. His attorney general has argued that the president’s careful consideration of each target and the narrow use of deadly force are an adequate and constitutional substitute for due process. No court has ever approved that. And his national security adviser has argued that the use of drones is humane since they are “surgical” and only kill their targets. We know that is incorrect, as the folks who monitor all this say that 11 percent to 17 percent of the 2,300 drone-caused deaths have been those of innocent bystanders.

Did you consent to a government that can kill whom it wishes? How about one that plays tricks on federal judges? How long will it be before the presidential killing comes home?

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is “Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom.” To find out more about Judge Napolitano and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2013 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Obama Gives Himself Permission To Kill by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano on Creators.com – A Syndicate Of Talent.

Written by Kelli Sladick

Representative Brett Hildabrand of Kansas’ 17th district has introduced a bill, HB2161, to nullify the so-called “indefinite detention” powers of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). HB2161 has many co-sponsors including Representatives: Bradford, Claeys, Garber, Grosserode, Hedke, Houser, Howell, Montgomery, O’Brien, Peck, Petty, Read and Rothlisberg. This bill is currently in the Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice.

This bill is different from and quite a bit stronger than previous bills introduced around the country to nullify NDAA indefinite detention. It includes kidnapping charges for federal agents attempting to arrest people in Kansas without due process. This concept stands on a strong leg, because when you remove due process from the equation, “indefinite detention” is little more than government-sanctioned kidnapping.

The bill states, in part: “A person who violates the provisions of this section may also be prosecuted for, convicted of, and punished for kidnapping or aggravated kidnapping, K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 21-5408, and amendments thereto.”

Violators of this bill could be subject to the following criminal penalties, if convicted of kidnapping:

Kidnapping is a severity level 3 felony with a potential of 8 years in prison. Aggravated kidnapping is a severity level l felony with a prison sentence of over 20 years being possible. Both of these felonies are subject to a fine “to not exceed $300,000″. The exact imprisonment time is determined by a variety of variables and guided by a complex grid and attorneys.

“Indefinite detainers” could also be charged with a misdemeanor charge of “denial of due process” which could include “a definite term of confinement in the county jail which shall be fixed by the court and shall not exceed one year” and “a sum not exceeding $2,500.”

This bill also states, “the provisions of this act shall not apply to the court martial of any member of the United States military pursuant to the uniform code of military justice, 10 U.S.C. Chapter 47.”

“When I first heard that the federal government was considering indefinite detention, I was horrified, but I was unaware of how to fight it at the state level. After reading about anti-NDAA legislation introduced in Texas, I knew we needed to attempt the same thing in Kansas,” said Representative Hildabrand.

He continued, “The kidnapping portion was added to convey the seriousness of the offense. If a non-government official were to take someone against their will and hold them without access to the outside world, we would consider that a kidnapping. If a government official does the same thing, without granting access to a lawyer or the courts, I see no difference.”

Representative Hildabrand’s bill will not release jurisdiction from the state of Kansas to the military. “I believe that a person either supports the whole Constitution, in every circumstance or they do not support it at all. Therefore, when any one is denied due process, I consider it an assault on the Constitution. I feel that is a key concept to convey to those serving in law enforcement and the military. If a bill violates the Constitution, it has no authority. The often misquoted Supremacy Clause states “laws pursuant to the Constitution.” The key being that it is pursuant to the Constitution to have validity.”

HISTORICAL PRECEDENT

A state proposal charging federal agents with kidnapping is not unprecedented in American history. In fact, such an action in the past has held the high moral ground in response to immoral, unjust, and unconstitutional federal slave-catching laws in the 19th Century.

In 1850, when President Millard Fillmore signed the second “Fugitive Slave Act,” due process was under serious attack by the federal government. The law compelled people of all states to “assist” federal marshals and their deputies with the apprehension of suspected runaway slaves. It brought all trials involving alleged fugitive slaves under federal jurisdiction. It included large fines for anyone who aided a slave in their escape, even by simply giving them food or shelter.

On top of it, bounties were paid to commissioners in fugitive slave cases. $10 was paid if a person was sent back to slavery, and $5 if the person was allowed freedom. The federal government was paying people to capture other people and send them to slavery.

The act also suspended habeas corpus and the right to a trial by jury for alleged “slaves,” and made their testimony inadmissible in court. The written testimony of the supposed slave master, on the other hand, which could be presented to the court by slave hunters, was given preferential treatment.

In response, state legislatures in Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Michigan, Maine, Kansas and Wisconsin passed what were called “personal liberty laws.” The state nullification bills made it difficult to nearly impossible to enforce the fugitive slave acts in those states. These laws were varied but generally guaranteed basic due process rights for accuse runaways. In some cases, these laws extended habeas corpus, provided for jury trials for accused runaways and harshly punished false testimony.

Vermont passed a “Habeas Corpus Law,” requiring state judicial and law enforcement officials to actually help captured fugitive slaves there. Massachusetts took a really strong stand – and passed a law that provided for kidnapping charges to anyone trying to use these “indefinite detention” provisions of the fugitive slave act.

In response to the Massachusetts bill threatening kidnapping charges on people who – well, kidnapped someone for having the wrong skin color – no federal agent was charged with kidnapping. Was this because the politicians there were grandstanding to garner support? No, it was no escapee was ever captured for return after the law was passed. The feds simply backed off, and the state response worked.

THE LESSON

In many situations, if you attempted to do what the federal government does every day you’d find yourself in prison for a long, long time. When it comes to issues like kidnapping, the hypocritical double-standard is even worse. Morality and justice demand that we do something about it. The people of Massachusetts and other states took the high moral ground in resisting the indefinite detention powers of the fugitive slave act in the 19th Century. Many states today are taking similar steps against the indefinite detention powers of the NDAA.

Whatever form it takes it’s the resistance that matters. When it comes to NDAA kidnapping powers, resistance is our duty.

LEGISLATION AND TRACKING

If you live anywhere outside of kANSAS, please contact your own legislators regarding anti-NDAA legislation. If none has been introduced in your state, you can email them The Liberty Preservation Act model legislation.

Track the status of NDAA nullification in states around the country HERE

ACTION ITEMS

If you are Kansas resident, join the Nullify NDAA group on Facebook and get active here:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/nullifyndaakansas/

Also, please contact the Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice.

Chair: Representative John Rubin, District 18
Phone: 785 296-7690
Email:john.rubin@house.ks.gov

Vice Chair: Representative Ramon Gonzalez, District 47
Phone: 785 296-7500
Email:ramon.gonzalezjr@house.ks.gov

Ranking Minority Member:Representative Gail Finney, District 84
Phone: 785 296-7648
Email:gail.finney@house.ks.gov

Members:
Representative Steven Becker, District 104
Phone: 785 296-7196
Email:steven.becker@house.ks.gov

Representative Rob Bruchman, District 20
Phone: 785 296-7644
Email:rob.bruchman@house.ks.gov

Representative Larry Campbell, District 26
Phone: 785 296-7632
Email:larry.campbell@house.ks.gov

Representative Blaine Finch, District 59
Phone: 785 296-7655
Email:blaine.finch@house.ks.gov

Representative Brett Hildabrand, District 17
Phone: 785 296-7659
Email:brett.hildabrand@house.ks.gov

Representative Melanie Meier, District 41
Phone: 785 296-7650
Email:melanie.meier@house.ks.gov

Representative Robert Montgomery, District 15
Phone: 785 296-7677
Email:bob.montgomery@house.ks.gov

Representative Tom Moxley, District 68
Phone: 785 296-7689
Email:tom.moxley@house.ks.gov

Representative Janice Pauls, District 102
Phone: 785 296-7657
Email:jan.pauls@house.ks.gov

Representative James Todd, District 29
Phone: 785 296-7695
Email:james.todd@house.ks.gov

NOTE: Michael Boldin contributed to this report

I’m originally from Ohio. I’m a veteran of the US Navy. I graduated from undergrad with two degrees and one in graduate school. My current home is Nashville, TN.

Resistance to NDAA Kidnapping Powers is our Duty – Tenth Amendment Center.

By John W. Whitehead

Police State

January 02, 2013

“We need to look more closely at a culture that all too often glorifies guns and violence.”—President Barack Obama

It didn’t take long for the tragedy of the Newtown, Connecticut shootings, which left 20 schoolchildren and six adults dead, to be co-opted by politicians and special interest groups alike, all eager to advance their ideas about how to prevent another deranged madman from taking innocent lives. President Obama is calling on Congress to issue gun control legislation that would limit access to assault weapons. The National Rifle Association (NRA) wants armed guards patrolling every school in America. Legislators in several states, including Florida, want to allow teachers to carry guns on school grounds. Others are clamoring for a lockdown of the schools, complete with metal detectors and guard dogs.

To our detriment, we have revisited this scenario in the wake of every school shooting since 12^th graders Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold walked into Columbine High School on April 20, 1999, and opened fire, killing 12 classmates and one teacher. Yet in the midst of widespread finger pointing (not even violent movies, crime dramas and violent video games have been spared) and calls for reform of the mental health care system and gun control, not a word has been said about the greatest perpetrator of violence in American society and around the world—the U.S. government.

Violence has become our government’s calling card, starting at the top and trickling down, from President Obama’s “kill list,” which relies on drones to target insurgents, to the more than 80,000 SWAT team raids carried out every year on unsuspecting Americans by heavily armed, black-garbed commandos and the increasingly rapid militarization of local police forces across the country. We even export violence worldwide, with one of this country’s most profitable exports being weapons.

Thus, any serious discussion about minimizing the violence in our society needs to start with the government and its tendency to use violence as a means to an end, whether in matters of foreign policy or domestically, deploying heavily armed agents to enforce a myriad of arcane, bureaucratic regulations that impinge on Americans simply going about their business, such as the goat farmers whose homes were raided by SWAT teams with the Food and Drug Administration, or those attempting to exercise their constitutional rights such as the Occupy protesters who were subjected to all manner of violence.

It is no coincidence that the assault weapons used by killer Adam Lanza were military-grade weapons. These weapons, commonly wielded in video games, action movies and by invading SWAT teams, go hand in hand with the steady diet of violence that permeates everything in our culture. What is more significant, however, is that these weapons are not just the stuff of celluloid fantasy. In the hands of government agents, whether they are members of the military, law enforcement or some other government agency, these weapons have become routine parts of America’s day-to-day life, a byproduct of the rapid militarization of law enforcement over the past several decades. Over the course of 30 years, police officers in jack boots holding assault rifles have become fairly common in small town communities across the country.

This is what happens when you turn a nation into a police state: weapons become accepted instruments of tyranny, whether in the hands of government agents or in the hands of raging lunatics.

Much of this can be traced to the government’s so-called “War on Drugs,” which opened the door for police to be equipped with military weapons. In 1981, Congress passed the Military Cooperation with Law Enforcement Act, enabling the military to share equipment, training, and intelligence with local police. In 1997, Congress approved the 1033 Program, which allows the Secretary of Defense to transfer surplus military supplies and weapons—everything from surplus assault rifles to mini-tanks, grenade launchers, and remote controlled robots—to local police agencies without charge. Since 1997, more than 17,000 police agencies have taken advantage of the 1033 Program, acquiring $2.6 billion dollars worth of weapons and equipment, and demand is only getting higher. In fact, a record-setting $500 million worth of equipment was distributed in 2011, twice the amount given away in 2010.

This armory of weaponry designed for war is not limited to local law enforcement agencies. All levels of government, including regulatory agencies within the federal government, are in possession of high-powered weapons designed to wreak havoc on the battlefield. For example, in March 2012, defense contractor ATK agreed to produce 450 million hollow point rounds to be used by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office. DHS placed another order for 750 million rounds of various ammunition in August 2012. In August 2012, the Social Security Administration (SSA) placed an order for 174,000 rounds of hollow point ammunition. The SSA plans to send the ammunition to 41 locations throughout the United States, including major cities such as Los Angeles, Detroit, and Philadelphia, among others.

No wonder many Americans are armed to the hilt. Many feel the need to protect themselves against their own government, whose arsenal only keeps growing and whose steady encroachments on civil liberties have resulted in a climate of surveillance wherein 1.7 billion communications between Americans, whether email, text, or phone call, are intercepted by the government daily, not to mention the impact of overcriminalization, which has rendered otherwise law-abiding individuals as lawbreakers for such mundane acts as holding Bible studies at home, making and sharing unpasteurized goat cheese with friends, and growing rare varieties of orchids.

Our culture’s fundamental loss of morality doesn’t help matters, either. Making the case that a government lacking in morality which fails to abide by its own laws is essentially inviting anarchy, acclaimed filmmaker Oliver Stone, co-author of The Untold History of the United States, argues, “Can we kill Bin Laden without having to bring him to trial, can we just get it done? And that ‘get it done’ mentality justifies the ends and that is where countries go wrong, and people go wrong. All of our lives are moral equations. Does the end justify the means? No, it never did.”

There are no easy answers. Clearly, if someone really wants to wreak havoc, they’ll find a way to obtain a weapon. Placing armed guards in every school in the country, as the NRA suggests, would merely heighten the culture of violence and contribute to a school environment that is already in lockdown mode. Indeed, as the Washington Post recognizes, there is evidence that the presence of armed guards in schools actually increases the chances of violent incidences occurring.

However, if President Obama, Congress and the American people really want the country to reconsider their relationship with guns and violence, then it needs to start with a serious discussion about the role our government has played and continues to play in contributing to the culture of violence. If the American people are being called on to scale back on their weapons, then the government and its cohorts—the military, the defense industry, the special interest groups, etc.—need to do the same. We owe it to the victims of Sandy Hook Elementary and Columbine High School and the victims of every other senseless act of gun violence in this country to do more than score political points off each other. If we’re serious about real change, it needs to start at the top.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of

John W. Whitehead of The Rutherford Institute

The Rutherford Institute. He is the author of The Change Manifesto (Sourcebooks).

Step Forward

By Michael Boldin

When Department of Justice attorney John Walsh recently referred to marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington State as attempts to nullify federal law – yes, he used the word nullify – I thought something amazing had just happened.

After 17 years of states resisting federal laws on weed, the DOJ is now recognizing these efforts for what they are.  Nullification.

I wonder who’s going to be next in DC.  Maybe the Department of Homeland Security?

In response to 37 states refusing to be in compliance with the Bush-era REAL ID act last month, for the fourth time now, DHS acknowledged that they couldn’t enforce the federal law and quietly gave states yet another “temporary deferment” to some unspecified future “suitable date.”  That law was supposed to be implemented five years ago this coming May.

When states like Montana say they won’t comply with the REAL ID Act – ever – I think it’s likely we’ll see a future statement from a DHS official telling us how states aren’t allowed to nullify federal acts, just like the DOJ did last month regarding weed.

SOME PERSONAL HISTORY

When I moved to Los Angeles from my native Wisconsin back in 1995, I had never even heard of nullification in a political context.  The following November, when California voters passed Prop 215 to legalize the use of marijuana for medical purposes, the impact didn’t really register.  Sure, it was strange that former presidents had come to the state to lobby against the Proposition as a conflict with federal law, but I still had no idea – nor did I really care – how it would play out.

Not long after that vote, a friend called me and asked me to go run some errands with her.  Pretty normal stuff, I thought, until she told me what we were up to.  The first stops were some standards – grocery store, get gas, things like that.  I don’t even remember for sure.  But one really stood out.  We were going to a marijuana dispensary so she could pick up some pot which was prescribed to her by her doctor.

I thought, “Dispensary?  What the heck is that?”

When she explained it to me as basically a retail store for weed, I was blown away.  The things running through my mind were probably the same kind of things that people think today when they hear about resistance to federal law for the first time – whether it’s on weed, or gun laws, or Obamacare, or anything else.  “That’s against the law,” I thought, “how can they be open and stay in business?”

It didn’t take long for me to learn that saying NO to Washington DC, while often daunting, certainly isn’t impossible to succeed at doing.  Today, in fact, there’s over 1000 of these kinds of stores in one city alone.

From this, I’ve learned a powerful lesson:  When enough people stand up and say NO to the feds, and enough states or local communities pass laws backing those people up – there’s not much that the federal government can do to force their so-called “laws” down our throats.

A PREDICTION

By 2006, when I decided to launch a project, the Tenth Amendment Center, I was sold on the idea of drawing a line in the sand.  And in early 2009, in speaking to a CNN producer about dozens of states considering 10th amendment resolutions, I made a prediction.  She was really intrigued by these non-binding resolutions that were getting passed around the country and after getting her questions answered, she finished off our conversation with what she thought was going to be a quick question, “What’s the next big thing we should be watching for?”

My answer: Nullification.

She had never heard of the word.  So I explained some of the history behind nullification.  I told her how states were refusing not only federal laws on marijuana, but resistance to the REAL ID act was succeeding too.  I mentioned to her that I was seeing strong indicators that state legislators would start pushing for nullification on other issues too.

She brushed me off, saying basically, “Well, if you think of anything we should pay attention too, you have my number.”

HAPPENING. NOW.

While CNN didn’t want to pick up on nullification as an important trend in political activism – and neither have any of the other news networks, by the way – that certainly doesn’t mean it’s not happening.  Bills are increasingly being introduced, considered and passed on issues beyond weed and REAL ID.

In 2013, you can expect to see NDAA “indefinite detention” nullification as a leading issue in states and local communities.  Obamacare nullification will also be at the forefront.  A number of states will be considering bills to nullify unconstitutional acts by the TSA.  More states will be looking to nullify federal laws on marijuana.  And 2nd Amendment activists are also learning that nullification of federal gun laws is the way to go – instead of hoping the federal politicians or federal judges will somehow magically limit their own power.

These things, I know they’ll be happening in 2013. Consideration of bills like these in states all over the country is a definite.  And while some will pass, it’s my hope that large numbers of them will.  But that won’t happen without you.

WHAT’S NEXT

With you involved at a state or local level – instead of a federal level – nullification has an even better chance of success.  With you contributing financially to state and local candidates, organizations, and causes – instead of those on a national level – the nullification movement will continue its upward march.  With you spending your time and energy keeping up to date on more local politics instead of the worthless soap opera that is the battle between Republicans and Democrats in DC, more people will follow your lead.  While nullification comes in many forms – state, local, sheriff, and individual – with your help, more and more people will join this growing and successful movement…for liberty.

John Adams was right when he told us that the American revolution was not the war itself.  The war was simply a result of the revolution, which was far greater.  He wrote:

“The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations. This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution.”

Today’s revolution is also a radical change in how Americans think and act.   It’s not a war, or a change in politicians in DC.   It’s not calling your congressman, or demanding that a federal court take a certain position.  It’s not asking federal politicians to start doing – or stop doing – anything.

Today’s revolution for liberty is about learning to live free – whether the federal government wants us to or not.

The Departments of Justice and Homeland Security are already recognizing the effects – and successes – of nullification.  Will the rest of the country?  With you helping lead the way in 2013 and the years to come, I know the answer already.

Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center. He was raised in Milwaukee, WI, and currently resides in Los Angeles, CA. Follow him on twitter – @michaelboldin, on LinkedIn, and on Facebook.

If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,

Let’s Abandon the Constitution, Says Professor – Tenth Amendment Center

1/2/2013  By Thomas Woods

No, not because it cedes too much power to the federal government. Surely that opinion would not be allowed in the New York Times.

Anticipating objections, I agree with the Spoonerite criticism of the Constitution, but in what follows I am acting as a historian and a logician evaluating claims.

Georgetown University’s Louis Michael Seidman writes in the NYT:

“Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago…. Imagine that after careful study a government official — say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress — reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?

The issue is not what Madison would have wanted. The point is that republican government is premised on the idea of consent. The people consented to the interpretation of the Constitution that was presented to them in the ratifying conventions. If in the interim no formal change in the Constitution has been forthcoming from the people, then the understanding that was presented at the ratifying conventions must be presumed to stand. Otherwise, professors at Georgetown University could impose their own preferences on the public instead.

As even Alexander Hamilton put it, “Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act.”

Back to Seidman:

Constitutional disobedience may seem radical, but it is as old as the Republic. In fact, the Constitution itself was born of constitutional disobedience.

So two wrongs make a right?

No sooner was the Constitution in place than our leaders began ignoring it. John Adams supported the Alien and Sedition Acts, which violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech.

But because there was a First Amendment (and a Tenth Amendment; you didn’t expect Seidman to mention that it was also on Tenth Amendment grounds that dissidents objected to the Alien and Sedition Acts, did you?), it was easier to criticize Adams. The government isn’t even following its own rules, people could say.

Thomas Jefferson thought every constitution should expire after a single generation.

Not true. He mentioned an idea similar to this exactly one time, and then, when its logical problems and impracticalities were described to him, never brought it up again.

He believed the most consequential act of his presidency — the purchase of the Louisiana Territory — exceeded his constitutional powers.

In this he was virtually alone among his party, members of whom assured him that the treaty power included the power to purchase additional territory.

Seidman then lists a bunch of examples of presidents who disobeyed the Constitution. This is supposed to amount to an argument for doing so now. Couldn’t it just as easily be an argument for deciding, once and for all, to abide by the principles of republican government and actually obey the Constitution? Surely we wouldn’t say that the Soviet Union’s long list of atrocities became more legitimate over time because of customary practice.

The fact that dissenting justices regularly, publicly and vociferously assert that their colleagues have ignored the Constitution — in landmark cases from Miranda v. Arizona to Roe v. Wade to Romer v. Evans to Bush v. Gore — should give us pause. The two main rival interpretive methods, “originalism” (divining the framers’ intent) and “living constitutionalism” (reinterpreting the text in light of modern demands), cannot be reconciled.

They cannot be reconciled. That is true. Could one of them be right and the other wrong? This possibility Seidman does not consider. In which of the ratifying conventions were the people told that they would be governed by judges’ subjective decisions as to how the Constitution ought to be adapted to “modern demands”? Nowhere. Therefore, this theory is at odds with republican government, and thus the existence of competing theories does not mean that application of constitutional principles to current issues is a hopeless task. It means some people are right and others wrong, as in any other field of endeavor.

Note, too, how Seidman describes originalism with the word “divining,” as if in order to figure out that most decisions were intended to be left to the states we would need tea leaves, Tarot cards, or sheep entrails.

Our sometimes flagrant disregard of the Constitution has not produced chaos or totalitarianism; on the contrary, it has helped us to grow and prosper.

One might cite the incarceration of the Japanese, the sedition decisions after World War I, and other obvious cases, or even the civil-liberties problems of today, but “helped us to grow and prosper”? FDR, who scarcely even pretended to follow the Constitution, gave us the slowest recovery from a depression in U.S. history. The post-Civil War growth in the U.S. economy was the most robust ever, and most Americans can barely name two of the presidents from that period.

This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands. Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation.

So it would be better not to have written rules for government in these cases, and just rely on our wise leaders’ good judgment? If we’re going to have a federal government, I’d rather have explicit rules governing its behavior, since when it violates those rules an important pedagogical moment presents itself to us: see, the thing won’t even obey its own rules. What does that tell you about this institution?

The president would have to justify military action against Iran solely on the merits, without shutting down the debate with a claim of unchallengeable constitutional power as commander in chief.

Seidman has been a constitutional law professor for 40 years (which explains a lot), and he actually thinks the issue of presidential war powers is debatable, or that it’s the Constitution that is causing our problems when the president asserts robust powers over foreign policy. He is saying that if only we could get the Constitution behind us, we could have a discussion about this issue. To the contrary, it is the Constitution and the whole testimony of American history through the mid-20th century that stand against the president. See my treatment of presidential war powers.

OK, that’s all I can do.

Thomas E. Woods, Jr. [send him mail; visit his website], a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, is the author of eleven books, most recently Rollback: Repealing Big Government Before the Coming Fiscal Collapse and Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, as well as the New York Times bestsellers Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse and The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. He is also the editor of five other books, including the just-released Back on the Road to Serfdom.

This is a fantastic Blog piece on how childrens toys are needlessly complicated these days.  From annoying and extra complex toys to assemble, to those which are already together but if you “transform” it to an alter ego, good luck getting it back into the other position.

Toys shouldn’t be too complex to deal with, but somehow companies like Hasbro have gotten off the mark.
Take a click here, hope you enjoy this story.

Are you f*#%ing kidding me, Hasbro??? | Gen X Daddy.

With a holiday WhiteHouse.Gov petition against Piers Morgan’s war on the 2nd Amendment hit a strong amount of signers.   The White House has promised an response any petitions over 25,000.   At the moment of this writing the petition has 90,891 signers since just Friday, Dec 21st, 2012.  This is during the holidays, so the amount of signers is astonishing.   The amount who have signed this petition is exploding by White House standards.  https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/deport-british-citizen-piers-morgan-attacking-2nd-amendment/prfh5zHD

Do people expect the government to deport Morgan?  Not really, but the law is by this side.  Today, Piers Morgan is in the United States to avoid pending charges against him from the Phone Hacking case, which has embroiled his later successor of the News Corporation paper  NEWS OF THE WORLD, Rebekah Brooks into charges and prosecution.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_of_the_World_phone_hacking_affair

The major problem is that there is a legal basis against those who as foreigners who come to the United States and agitate against the Constitution or Bill of Rights.  A chargeable offense for jailing or deportation as prior adjudicated in cases such as, “Subversion as a Foreigner,” Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972)   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleindienst_v._Mandel

The fact is the law does call for arrest and deportation of someone like Morgan, even a Wall Street Journal reporter has countered to show the law is clear on this matter. http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/23/wall-street-journal-columnist-explains-how-to-deport-piers-morgan/

Morgan himself has thrown gasoline onto the fire with his statement on twitter, “Ironic U.S. gun rights campaign to deport me for ‘attacking 2nd Amendment rights’ – is my opinion not protected under 1st Amendment rights?”   The fact is by caselaw, Morgan’s rights to free speech can be given as protected, but his presence in the US is not.

Will you sign the petition?

-Peace, Love & Apple Pie!

By John Whitehead  (Constitutional Lawyer and founder of The Rutherford Institute)

“The game is rigged, the network is bugged, the government talks double-speak, the courts are complicit and there’s nothing you can do about it.”
-David Kravets, reporting for Wired

Nothing you write, say, text, tweet or share via phone or computer is private anymore. This is the reality of the internet-dependent, plugged-in life of most Americans today.

A process which started shortly after 9/11 with programs like National Security Agency (NSA) wiretapping and Total Information Awareness has grown into a full-fledged network of warrantless surveillance, electronic tracking and data mining, thanks to federal agents having been granted carte blanche access to the vast majority of electronic communications in America. Their methods generally run counter to the Constitution, but no federal agency, court or legislature has stepped up to oppose this rapid erosion of our privacy, and there is no way of opting out of this system.

Consequently, over the course of the past 12 years, Congress, the courts, and the president (both George W. Bush and Barack Obama) have managed to completely erode privacy in America. Complicating matters further is the fact that technology is moving so rapidly that we often find ourselves making decisions (or subjected to decisions) whose consequences we can scarcely comprehend.

A good case in point is Presidential Policy Directive 20, a secret order signed by President Obama in mid-October as a means of thwarting cyberattacks. Based on what little information has been leaked to the press about the clandestine directive, it appears that the president has essentially put the military in charge of warding off a possible cyberattack. A FOIA request by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) seeking more details on the directive was allegedly denied because doing so could cause “exceptionally grave damage to the national security.” However, EPIC believes the order allows for military deployment within the United States, including the ability to shut off communications with the outside world if the military believes it is necessary.

Dependent as we are on computer technology for almost all aspects of our lives such that a cyberattack on American computer networks really could cripple both the nation’s infrastructure and its economy, this puts us in a somewhat precarious position. Do we allow the government liberal powers to control and spy on all electronic communications flowing through the United States? Can we trust the government not to abuse its privileges and respect our privacy rights? Does it even matter, given that we have no real say in the matter?

Essentially, there are three camps of thought on the question of how much power the government should have, and which camp you fall into says a lot about your view of government—or, at least, your view of whichever administration happens to be in power at the time, in this case it being the Obama administration.

In the first camp are those who trust the government to do the right thing—or, at least, they trust the Obama administration to look out for their best interests. As then-Senator Obama himself observed during a 2006 trip to Kenya: “In the end, if the people cannot trust their government to do the job for which it exists — to protect them and to promote their common welfare — all else is lost.” With a religious fervor not unlike that of many George W. Bush devotees, Obama’s most ardent followers largely want to believe that their “chosen one”—the man Jamie Foxx refers to as “our Lord and Savior Barack Obama”—will save them.

“The game is rigged, the network is bugged, the government talks double-speak, the courts are complicit and there’s nothing you can do about it.”
-David Kravets, reporting for Wired

To this group, Presidential Policy Directive 20 is simply a desperately needed blueprint for dealing with a possible cyberattack, with the military as the most logical means of thwarting such an attack. Any suggestion that the Obama administration might abuse this power is dismissed as right-wing hysterics.

In the second camp are those who not only don’t trust the government but think the government is out to get them. Sadly, they’ve got good reason to distrust the government, especially when it comes to abusing its powers and violating our rights. For example, consider that government surveillance of innocent Americans has exploded in the past 12 years. In fact, according to a transparency report recently issued by Google, the US government made over 16,000 requests for user data in the first half of 2012. Google complied with 90% of these requests. Federal magistrate Judge Stephen Smith estimates that 30,000 secret surveillance orders issued by the federal government are approved each year, allowing federal agents to access all forms of electronic communications, including tapping into one’s internet connection, accessing one’s email, and tracking one’s cell phone. Since these orders are created in secret, are not subject to appellate review, are sealed indefinitely, and do not always result in criminal charges, most people targeted for surveillance have no idea they have been spied on. All of this spying and data collection has led Wall Street Journalreporter Julia Angwin to claim that the US government has more data on American citizens than the Stasi had on all East Germans.

To those in this second group, Presidential Policy Directive 20 is nothing less than the shot across the bow—a clear warning by the government that it intends to establish martial law and will use the military to shut down all means of communications.

Then there’s the third camp, which neither sees government as an angel or a devil, but merely as an entity that needs to be controlled, or as Thomas Jefferson phrased it, bound “down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution.” A distrust of all who hold governmental power was rife among those who drafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. James Madison, the nation’s fourth president and the primary author of the United States Constitution and the author of the Bill of Rights, was particularly vocal in warning against government. He once observed, “All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree.”

Government exists to secure rights, an idea that is central to constitutionalism. In appointing the government as the guardian of the people’s rights, the people give it only certain, enumerated powers, which are laid out in a written constitution. The idea of a written constitution actualizes the two great themes of the Declaration of Independence: consent and protection of equal rights. Thus, the purpose of constitutionalism is to limit governmental power and ensure that the government performs its basic function: to preserve and protect our rights, especially our unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and our civil liberties.

“Separation of powers” and “checks and balances” are central to such a constitutional system of government. Separation of powers ensures that no single authority is entrusted with all the powers of government. Similarly, a system of checks and balances was intended to strengthen the separation of powers and prevent despotism. Such checks and balances include dividing Congress into two houses, with different constituencies, term lengths, sizes and functions; granting the president a limited veto power over congressional legislation, as well as congressional oversight and limitations on presidential powers; and appointing an independent judiciary capable of reviewing ordinary legislation in light of the written Constitution, which is referred to as “judicial review.”

To those in the third camp, Presidential Policy Directive 20 is problematic on many fronts, especially because it lacks transparency (the NSA has actually declared the secret order exempt from disclosure) and aims to engage the military in domestic matters, in direct contravention of Posse Comitatus. These individuals believe that the only way to ensure balance in government is by holding government officials accountable to abiding by the rule of law.

Unfortunately, with all branches of the government, including the courts, stridently working to maintain its acquired powers, there seems to be little to protect the American people from the fast-growing electronic surveillance state. Making matters worse, Congress has chosen to dig the hole even deeper. The Senate is set to vote on a bill which will give 22 regulatory agencies, including the FTC, the FCC, and the Federal Reserve, among others, the power to access people’s email, Facebook and Twitter accounts without a warrant.

Clearly, we now find ourselves in a constitutional malaise—one that, if not brought under control, will continue to centralize power in Washington, DC.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He is the author of The Change Manifesto (Sourcebooks).

By Andrew P. Napolitano

After President Richard Nixon was forced from office in 1974, congressional investigators discovered what they believed was the full extent of his use of the FBI and the CIA to engage in domestic spying. In that pre-digital era, the spying consisted of listening to telephone calls, opening mail, and using undercover agents to infiltrate political organizations and, as we know, break into their offices. Nixon claimed he did this for the protection of national security. He also claimed he was entitled to break the law and violate the Constitution. “If the president does it, that means that it’s not illegal,” he once famously said.

Since no one was prosecuted on the basis of data stolen or retrieved by his spies, the courts rarely encountered this behavior and never had to rule on it, and thus it went largely unchecked. A few victims challenged the spying, but the Supreme Court ruled that without palpable harm, the challengers lacked the legal ability to complain in court — what judges call “standing.”
But many Americans did complain to Congress, which in 1978 enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, commonly called FISA. FISA provided that all domestic surveillance be subject to the search warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, except for spying on foreign agents operating in the U.S. For those cases, FISA established a secret federal court that has been authorized to issue search warrants to spy on foreign agents.

The constitutional standard for all search warrants is probable cause of crime . FISA, however, established a new, different and lesser standard — thus unconstitutional on its face since Congress is bound by, and cannot change, the Constitution — of probable cause of status . The status was that of an agent of a foreign power. So, under FISA, the feds needed to demonstrate to a secret court only that a non-American physically present in the U.S., perhaps under the guise of a student, diplomat or embassy janitor, was really an agent of a foreign power, and the demonstration of that agency alone was sufficient to authorize a search warrant to listen to the agent’s telephone calls or read his mail.

Over time, the requirement of status as a foreign agent was modified to status as a foreign person. This, of course, was an even lesser standard and one rarely rejected by the FISA court. In fact, that court has rarely rejected anything, having granted search warrants in well over 97 percent of applications. This is hardly harmless, as foreign persons in the U.S. are frequently talking to Americans in the U.S. Thus, not only did FISA violate the privacy rights of foreigners (the Fourth Amendment protects “people,” not just Americans); it violated the rights of those with whom they were communicating, American or non-American.

It gets worse. The Patriot Act, which was enacted in 2001 and permits federal agents to write their own search warrants in violation of the Fourth Amendment, actually amended FISA so as to do away with the FISA-issued search warrant requirement when the foreign person is outside the U.S. This means that if you email or call your cousin in Europe or a business colleague in Asia, the feds are reading or listening, without a warrant, without suspicion, without records and without evidence of anything unlawful.

The Patriot Act amendments to FISA also permit the feds to use anything they see or hear while spying in a federal court. The amended FISA statute permitting these warrantless searches of emails, telephone calls and postal mail expires at the end of this month. Last month, the House quietly voted to extend this dreadful authority for another five years, and in the next week, the Senate will consider doing the same.

What’s wrong with Congress?

FISA gives the government unchecked authority to snoop on all Americans who communicate with any foreign person, in direct contravention of the Fourth Amendment. The right to privacy is a natural human right. Its enshrinement in the Constitution has largely kept America from becoming East Germany. Moreover, everyone in Congress has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, which could not be more clear: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects…” shall not be violated, except via a warrant issued by a neutral judge upon the judge finding probable cause of crime. If we let Congress, which is a creature of the Constitution, change the Constitution, then no one’s liberty or property is safe, and freedom is dependent upon the political needs of those in power.
The president and the leadership of both political parties in both houses of Congress have abandoned their oaths to uphold the Constitution. They have claimed that foreigners and their American communicants are committed to destroying the country and only the invasion of everyone’s right to privacy will keep us safe. They are violating the privacy of us all to find the communications of a few. Who will keep us safe from them? Their behavior is committed to destroying the Constitution.
Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is “Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom.” To find out more about Judge Napolitano and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO