Baby Alfie, the Latest Victim of Omnipotent Government

This article was originally published by Ron Paul at Ron Paul Institute

Twenty-three-month-old Alfie Evans, passed away in a British hospital on Saturday. While the official cause of death was a degenerative brain disease, Alfie may have been murdered by the British health system and the British high court. Doctors at the hospital treating Alfie decided to remove his life support, against the wishes of Alfie’s parents. The high court not only upheld the doctors’ authority to override the parents’ wishes, it refused to allow the parents to take Alfie abroad for treatment.

In upholding the government’s authority to substitute its judgment for that of Alfie’s parents, the high court is following in the footsteps of authoritarians throughout history. Ever since Plato, supporters of big government have sought to put government in charge of raising children. The authoritarianism of a system where “experts” can override parents is underscored by a police warning that they were “monitoring” social media posts regarding Alfie.

Alfie’s case is not just an example of the dangers of allowing government to usurp parental authority or the failures of socialized medicine. It shows the logical result of the widespread acceptance of the idea that rights are mere privileges bestowed by government. It follows from this idea that rights can be taken away whenever demanded by government officials or the popular will.

Of course, most western politicians deny they believe rights come from government. They instead claim that government must place “reasonable” limits on rights to advance important policy goals, such as limiting the right to free speech to protect certain groups from hate speech, or limiting property rights to promote economic equality. But, a right by its very nature cannot be limited or abolished and still be a right.

This disdain for a true understanding of rights is found among both liberals and conservatives. Both support a welfare-warfare state funded via the theft of income taxes and the indirect theft of inflation. Both support jailing people for nonviolent actions like drinking raw milk. Many politicians, regardless of ideology, support restrictions on parental rights such as mandatory vaccination laws.

While claiming to support the right to life, most modern liberals not only support legalized abortion, they want to force pro-lifers to fund abortion providers. Both the right-wing neocons and left-wing humanitarian interventionists dismiss the innocents killed in US military actions as inconsequential “collateral damage.”

America’s Founding Fathers rejected the idea that rights come from government. They instead embraced the view that rights are either granted by the creator or are a basic attribute of humanity.

Since rights do not come from government, government has no more legitimate authority to violate our rights than does a private individual. Thus, if an individual cannot use force to make you help others, neither can the government. If an individual cannot use force to stop you from gambling online or telling un-PC jokes, neither can the government. If an individual cannot use force to stop parents from seeking medical treatment for their child, neither can the government.

Widespread acceptance of natural rights and the principle of nonaggression that flows from natural rights is key to obtaining and maintaining a free society. Thus, educating people in the benefits of free markets, individual liberty, and a foreign policy of peace and free trade is key to protecting future Alfie Evanses, and other victims of the welfare-warfare state, as well as to restoring respect for the moral principles of liberty among a critical mass of the people.

They Fight the Law and the Law Wins

This article was originally published by Doug “Uncola” Lynn at TheTollOnline.com

I saw the tears of the oppressed—

 and they have no comforter;

 power was on the side of their oppressors….

 –  Ecclesiastes 4:1

In viewing the daily headlines and reading various online blogs, it appears many of these have converged into discussions on law and rights. Two examples of ongoing national conversations include mass shootings versus the Second Amendment and Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s preference for prosecution of process crimes in a bogus election hacking conspiracy, over a real investigation into documented corruption at the highest levels of American government.

On April Fools Day it was revealed the Washington DC permits for the March 24, 2018 “March for Our Lives” event were acquired months before the Parkland Shooting even took place. The irony is palpable. One would think that would be the smoking gun (pun intended) evidence of a conspiracy, but no. Nothing shall prevent the children from wielding their emotional wounds, like a Samurai sword in a Tarantino flick, against the Second Amendment; and Laura Ingraham’s right to free speech.

The very next day, on April 2, 2018, Deerfield, Illinois nullified the U.S. Constitution and gave their residents 60 days to turn in their guns or face fines of $1,000 per day per gun.

The day after that, on April 3, 2018, a previously undisclosed memo was unveiled proving illegal collusion between Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and his co-conspirator, Robert Mueller, in the special counsel investigation of President Trump.

An August 2017 memo from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to Special Counsel Robert Mueller surfaced late Monday evening in a court filing. Mueller used the memo to defend his scope of the investigation against a recent motion Manafort filed to dismiss his case.

 In the heavily redacted memo, Robert Mueller admits Rosenstein’s order appointing him to Special Counsel was intentionally vague.

 ‘This violates the special counsel law that requires a specific statement of facts to be investigated’, says Attorney Gregg Jarrett.

So let’s get this straight: Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller to be special counsel, signed off on at least one of the misrepresented, and therefore illegal, FISA applications on Team Trump for a counterintelligence investigation. His aforementioned August 2, 2017 memo to Mueller is now being used to justify the July 26, 2017 home invasion on Paul Manafort after it happened. Now Mueller is, instead, investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice for firing former FBI Director, James Comey.

As Fox News Legal Analyst, Greg Jarret has additionally pointed out regarding Mueller and Comey:

The two men and former colleagues have long been friends, allies and partners.  Agents have quipped that they were joined at the hip while at the Department of Justice and the FBI.  They have a mentor-protégé relationship.  The likelihood of prejudice and favoritism is glaring and severe.

This, even though the special counsel statute specifically prohibits those having “a personal relationship with any person substantially involved in the investigation or prosecution.”

This whole special counsel fiasco is more incestuously disturbing than some hillbilly siblings getting hitched on the Jerry Springer show.

Furthermore, while reports of Trump’s fictitious collusion with the Russians continue to dominate the Lamestream Media’s talking points, the actual sale of twenty-percent of America’s uranium deposits to Russia, which resulted in the Uranium One payments to the Clinton Foundation, remains, shamefully, ignored. This, even though it was confirmed by the New York Times in 2015 and Obama’s FBI and DoJ were aware of the crime:

Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.

They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill. The FBI Uncovered Evidence that Russian Money Was Funneled to the Clinton Foundation

 Who was the Director of the FBI at that time?

Robert Mueller.

Who led the investigation into the Uranium One sale?

Rod Rosenstien.

Now these same co-conspirators are investigating Trump? Like Batman and Robin gone bad, the real-life dynamic duo must be giggling like the Joker at how their plans came together. Indeed, these Neros are fiddling while America burns.  Just yesterday, the Justice Department, missed the House Judiciary Committee’s deadline to hand over FBI documents on FISA and the Clinton Foundation.

What an extraordinary convergence of events.

At the same time the U.S. Government is being exposed as exceedingly corrupt at the highest levels, the Second Amendment is simultaneously under unprecedented attack.

Coincidence?

But what about the law? What about the rights of U.S. citizens? Well, obviously, those were only valid under the old, constitutional, plan.

The English philosopher, John Locke, once wrote:

The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom.

– Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government, Ch. VI, sec. 57

Today we stand at the intersection of Liberty and Tyranny. We’ve seen this final fork in the roadcoming for some time. In truth, we’ve taken many decades to get here.

Corrupt government officials, greedy bankers, corporate pirates, and profiteering politicians have hijacked the nation and shredded the Constitution; but they are not the only reasons for America’s decline. They were, in fact, encouraged and facilitated by the decimation of American education; combined with manifest materialism and a pervading apathy in the hearts and minds of the people.

However, although the majority of the nation has abrogated their rights and responsibilities as free citizens, it doesn’t necessarily reflect negatively on the U.S. Constitution. On the contrary, it was great while it lasted.

From the times of the first songs, mankind has oscillated between civilization and savagery; from liberty to tyranny.

There are those who believe rights come from power because, after all, power passes laws. Moreover, in the example of the U.S. Government today, as well as third-world shitholes, power also breaks its own laws at will. It’s how James Comey decreed Hillary Clinton’s obstruction of justice as “extremely careless”. If only those who now stand convicted by Robert Mueller for process crimes could be so lucky.

Evidently, the government giveth at will; and the government taketh away.

The German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, believed the will to power was the main driving force in humans. He was influenced by his Deutschland predecessor, Arthur Schopenhauer, who embraced Wille zum Leben, or will to life; which is, essentially, self-preservation. Self-preservation occurs in both civilized and barbaric societies; yet by differing means and towards separate ends.

But where is power actually derived from? A divine source? A piece of paper? The people? The end of a gun?

If I said there were no real answers, per se, but only choices – would you agree? Either way, cognitive constructs, like human governments, require the acceptance of certain principles, or premises.

Therefore, let us consider this foundational question:

What is the essence of mankind that separates his existence from lesser forms of life?

Plants are alive but they have no emotions or cognitive function. Animals have emotions, limited cognitive abilities, and even emotional memory, which some define as a “soul”. But what divides Man from all other animals?

Is it not his awareness of the concept of Time? Isn’t that at the core of Man’s consciousness? Thinkabout that for a second (get it?). Without a perception of time, how could consciousness or free will exist? Without a comprehension of a beginning, middle, and end, or alpha and omega, there would be no means for logic, reason, and volition to occur. Whether the understanding of time was a divine spark from a deity’s fire, or it evolved like magic through the ages, it now allows mankind to cognitively travel beyond this instant. And, without that ability, the actuality of opposable thumbs would have provided zero benefit.

Now let’s mentally launch from this moment and consider mankind’s travails through history in relation to time and space. Assuming Einstein was correct in proving these as commutable; is not volition, then, indicative of direction?

From the times of Eden, consciousness and free will was manifested as an understanding of “who”, “what”, “where”, and “when”. In the case of Eden, we would recognize these, in order, as Adam and Eve, the apple, the garden, and a long time ago. The canvas of spacetime, or at least an understanding of it, is required for the latter three. Adam and Eve, then, accordingly, were symbolically, or literally, representative of volition and, therefore, direction.

Perhaps it is direction after all, by which the standards of quality, morality, and common senseare defined; and by degree, as good and bad, for better or worse.

If all that were true, then wouldn’t authority simply be a matter of selective, or mandated, preference? In other words, if time were a bus, we are either driving or riding, but we can choose this day what we will serve:

– Chaos / Anarchy – (Self / survival of the fittest / savagery)

– Constitutional Law – (U.S. Founding Fathers / Judeo & Greco-Roman canon)

– Theocracy / Islamic Law – (Unseen or deceased lawgivers / Allah / Muhammad)

– Martial Law / Dictatorship / Communism / Socialism – (Big Brother / the collective)

Of course there are other choices, including amalgamations by degree, but the point is this:  We are free to decide and if we don’t choose, then it will be chosen for us; in one direction, or another. For example, the first choice above, “chaos”, typically transmutes to “order” via the remaining choices (i.e. Ordo Ab Chao).

When considering authority, law, liberty, and free will, I am reminded of Victor Frankl’s book “Man’s Search for Meaning”. Therein, Frankl proposes three ways by which people find meaning in life (paraphrased here):

– Through one’s life work, creation and action; devotion to a cause

– Experiencing beauty and through loving others

– And, what Frankl calls the last resort of freedom (realized as he stood naked in an Austrian concentration camp):  Choosing one’s attitude towards any situation no matter how dire.

The first two involve making choices within the freedom to act. The third involves a choice even when one is physically helpless. Therefore, in EVERY circumstance, free will presupposes choice. Whether by commission, or omission, decisions are made. That is to say, some selections are conscious and others are made by default, or negation. Either way, we believe, we choose, we act. What we believe, therefore, serves as the foundation of our conduct.

Whether one supports Donald Trump, or not, there remains the possibility he could be the final gasp of a patriotic, liberty-loving minority in a dying Idiocracy of effete snowflakes who barely know how to unlock their car doors when the batteries die in their keyless remotes.

If Democracy fails, who will fight the Second American Revolution?  It’s a good question because, just as Dorothy was not in Kansas anymore, neither is it 1773 AD when the Sons of Liberty destroyed a shipment of tea in the Boston Harbor.  In our age of technological centralization, surveillance, drones, and advanced weaponry, our choices could be limited; if they aren’t already.

Even if things go allegorically south, and America descends into a Second Civil War, the post-industrial collapse will resemble neither the days of Lincoln and Lee, nor the ascendency of industrial civilization. In the new American collapse, EBT cards will revert from magic breadbaskets back into useless pieces of plastic faster than a fat kid chasing an ice cream truck. There will be rampant crime in both overpopulated and rural areas. Family will be pitted against family. Neighbor will rise against neighbor and battles will be waged over food and water.

Within the chaos, there will be voices screaming, in unison, for a return to order. This will, most likely, result in gang rule or little kings reigning over little fiefdoms. Or possibly, as many of the Christian persuasion are now predicting: A larger beast exiting stage left with a 666 tattoo on his forehead and a credit-card reader in his back pocket.

With the technological powers at the disposal of those in control, the key to centralizing power becomes easier than game of Whack-a-mole. Besides, when bellies become empty and smartphone batteries are depleted, who will fight? The Millennials who voted for Bernie Claus? Of course not. In a politically correct nation of participation trophy winners, most people will likely slip on any collar for a slice of bread and learn to love their new “necklace”.

What, then, will be the final destination? I suspect it will be global communism: a day’s labor for a day’s rations; also called slavery.

From the time Karl Marx first dipped his quill pen into the black, the attraction of Communism to its adherent’s has continually appeared like cancer from remission; across all ethnic and national boundaries. The common desire, it seems, is for Man to create heaven on Earth; a longing no doubt derived from empty vessels and clouds with no rain; from flawed and spiritually vacated people promising paradise from the vacuum in their own souls. In the end, however, the result is always the same: civilizational savagery, widespread violence, starvation, and death.

In another era, governmental checks and balances were the preferred choice. Why did America’s Founding Fathers prefer Constitutional Law over totalitarianism? Why didn’t we? These are questions for the ages.

The Catholic Archbishop of Philadelphia, Charles J. Chaput, quoting the French author, Georges Bernanos, once wrote:

The world will be saved only by free men. We must make a world for free men. When trouble is looking for you it’s primarily a question of facing it, since it would be still more dangerous to turn your back on it.

There are laws, like gravity, that are hard to fight.  It’s like standing on high ground watching a flooded river and waiting for it to recede. Time flows forward and whatever happens next, virtue always points in the right direction; back to better. Some choices will be more valuable than gold and silver, or digital cash, in the days ahead. Some laws may be inevitable but, at the same time, some rights are inalienable.

Beware the patient ones. They’re out of time.

Speaking Truth to Power Against Gun Control

Representative Mark Walker   4-4-2018

Everyday, millions of hardworking North Carolinians go to work, provide for their families and strive to be good neighbors who make a difference in their communities. Their words are often more powerful than any speech coming out of Washington or Hollywood.

Thank you Mr. Robinson for speaking truth to power at the Greensboro City Council meeting last night.

Mark Robinson Address Greensboro City Council on Second Amendment

Everyday, millions of hardworking North Carolinians go to work, provide for their families and strive to be good neighbors who make a difference in their communities. Their words are often more powerful than any speech coming out of Washington or Hollywood. Thank you Mr. Robinson for speaking truth to power at the Greensboro City Council meeting last night.

Posted by Representative Mark Walker on Wednesday, April 4, 2018

 

 

The post Speaking Truth to Power Against Gun Control appeared first on Oath Keepers.

Public Apathy and the Erosion of Our Liberties

(Oath Keepers and a recent article, Gun Control is Racism, by Greg McWhirter are mentioned.)

Exclusive: Erik Rush urges Americans to stop accepting unconstitutional dictates.

by ERIK RUSH   March 7th, 2018

 

Last week in this space, primarily citing firearms laws and the nascent surveillance state in America, I criticized some on both the right and the left for their tendency to accept an inordinate degree of government intervention in certain areas when it served their particular ideology and Americans’ overall penchant for denial with regard to emerging government tyranny. Finally, I asserted that if we are to survive as a free nation – possibly even restoring some of the rights that have been usurped or diluted by our government – then we are going to have to become far more scrupulous with regard to our vigilance against tyranny, as well as becoming better informed as to what our constitutional rights actually are.

Despite much relief on the part of conservative and libertarian types following the election of Donald Trump and his proclivity for respecting constitutional law in more areas than most of his predecessors in recent memory, we must be (or become) aware that we are still in a fight for our lives, constitutionally-speaking, and that progressivism is very much alive and well in America.

Today I would like to challenge Americans’ tendency to summarily accept the doctrines of institutional orthodoxies, such as certain laws and conventions. There are many dangers associated with such behavior; an extreme example might be German citizens in the 1940s who had nothing in particular against Jews, but who turned their Jewish neighbors in to the Gestapo simply because it was “the law of the land.” When people become slaves to the doctrines of institutional orthodoxies, there is a very real danger of their losing their humanity.

American citizens have been living in a sort of retrogressive groove in this sense for at least a century, as they accept or ignore the myriad laws and dictates of regulatory agencies that chip away their individual liberties.

There are any number of laws and conventions I might use to illustrate this, but some will resonate more readily than others either due to their gravity, or because they have come to light in the recent past.

Firearms laws are far and away among the most dangerous of these. I have repeatedly cited the fact that even those gun control measures most Americans deem “reasonable” have severely eroded our Second Amendment rights, as well as often containing insidious “poison pills” therein that restrict Americans’ right to keep and bear arms far more than the ostensible intention sold to the public at the time of their implementation. I have pointed out that federal law bars many people who have been convicted of nonviolent crimes as well as people who have been institutionalized for any mental issues, voluntarily or involuntarily (a woman’s nervous breakdown after a rape, for example), from ever owning or possessing firearms or ammunition. Look it up.

A “controversial” sheriff recently declared that the Second Amendment is the only concealed carry permit any citizen needs, and in fact there are 12 states in which the law reflects this. And then there are the Oath Keepers, a constitutionally conscious organization of law enforcement personnel that is active in every state in the Union; some of its members will refrain from arresting individuals whom they discover carrying concealed firearms without a permit despite the law, unless they happen to have outstanding warrants or something of that nature.

A little-known fact is that the first gun control laws in America had their roots in racist practices, as Oath Keepers Board of Directors member Gregg McWhirter points out in his article “Gun Control is Racism.”

 

Read more at www.wnd.com

Photo: screenshot from FOX News

Learn more about Oath Keepers

 

 

The post Public Apathy and the Erosion of Our Liberties appeared first on Oath Keepers.

Socialists In Oregon Pass ‘Universal Healthcare’ But They Have No Idea How To Pay For It

Typical socialists: approve a massive government program by calling it a “right” with exactly zero plans or ideas on how to fund the program.

House Democrats in Oregon passed a resolution referring a question to voters without a single Republican vote. It heads next to the Senate. The provision would ask voters to alter the state Constitution to declare healthcare a “right.” There are many reasons healthcare isn’t a right, but that’s neither here nor there.

Owning a gun is right, but there aren’t any gun owners running around demanding exorbitant tax increases so the government can provide everyone who wants a gun with one. This is exactly what the left always gets wrong about healthcare.

Just because our rights are secured by government, it does not follow that they must be provided by government. This means that while it is correct to suggest that people have a right to food, it is incorrect to say that the state must provide it. Indeed, flowing from our rights to liberty and life, we have the right to keep the fruits of our labor, through which the marketplace has proved superior in providing access to food, as failed communist states have made clear. This brings us to the heart of what is wrong with declaring health care—ex nihilo—a human right. –The Federalist

Buoyed by voters’ approval of health care taxes in the January special elections and terrified of congressional Republican attempts to undo the Affordable Care Act, Oregon Democrats are looking at health care as a key election issue this year. But not even all Democrats agree. Some say that the federal government (the same government that’s $20 trillion in debt with over $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities) should be in charge of universal healthcare, not the Oregon state government.

Not to mention putting any government in charge of any amount of healthcare leads to the gradual stripping of medical freedom from individuals and the eventual outcome is medical tyranny. It also has no idea how to get the money to provide all Oregonians with “free” healthcare. The League of Women Voters’ president Norman Turrill and social policy coordinator Karen Nibler pointed out that without federal funding for universal health care, Oregon would be on the hook to cover the entire cost.

“The League cannot support an amendment for health care as a right because there is an implied state responsibility to provide the health care for all residents,” Turrill and Nibler wrote. “The state of Oregon has insufficient income to support its current responsibilities and cannot provide the added cost of health care coverage for all its residents at this time.” Imagine that. Things have to be paid for, but surely Oregon voters would just vote away more of their money.  They love tax increases it seems.

Police Now Conducting Mouth Swab Checkpoints to Test Drivers for Marijuana

With the legalization of marijuana comes the bolstering of the police state and the new mouth swab checkpoints for weed are evidence of it.

NRA & Republicans Pushing Bill to Make it Easier for Feds to Disarm Citizens

The NRA is pushing a bill through Washington with near-unanimous support from the right that allows the feds to disarm Americans without due process.

We All Have Inherent Rights – Regardless Of Whether A Nation’s “Authority” Recognizes It

We all have inherent rights – unalienable, God-given, natural rights – regardless of whether a nation’s government recognizes it or writes it down as law.

We all have inherent rights, no matter whether the governing authority of a particular geographical area recognizes it or whether it has been written down on a piece of paper as law. People from different from societies and cultures call these rights slightly different things. In the USA, they have been referred to as unalienable rights ever since the 1776 Declaration of Independence. Some call them natural rights to distinguish them from State-granted rights (which are not really rights but rather privileges). Others simply call them human rights. From a more religious perspective they are called God-given rights. Those who are uncomfortable with the term “God” may prefer intrinsic rights or inherent rights. But, whatever you call them, they are a universal concept; they are a natural extension of ourselves with which we are born, and which we possess just by virtue of being human.

What is the Definition of “Inherent Rights”?

A right is an entitlement to a need. Inherent rights are the extension of intuitive self-knowing, of knowing that we are entitled to have our basic needs met. They are the verbalization of an instinctual feeling that we are worthy of love, peace and abundance, and that we deserve certain things because we are alive. These rights “come with” us, and we carry them around, like a tortoise carries its shell. Technically, inherent rights have no material existence outside the human mind, so from one perspective you could say we have invented them. However, I believe they are pointing to something profound and ineffable, like a mapping device for how we are supposed to make our way in this world and socially interact with others.

Why Inherent Rights Matter

Inherent rights may be an invention, but they are a very important one, for they are the means by which we determine justice, fair entitlement and peaceful conflict resolution. They are also the key means by which we ensure, in law, in theory and hopefully in practice, that we live in a free society and that the will of tyrannical governments is restrained. Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and the 3rd President of the USA, had a lot of things to say about rights. They formed a big part of the basis of how he thought and viewed the world, and thus how the US came to be as a nation. Here are some quotes from him:

“Nothing … is unchangeable but the inherent … rights of man.” – Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824

“Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance.” – Thomas Jefferson, Legal Argument, 1770

This is Jefferson on balancing your rights vs. the rights of others:

“Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” – Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819

Jefferson considered the primary – and only – function of Government was to safeguard the rights of all its citizens:

“To secure these rights [to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” – Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, 1776

“It is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all.” – Thomas Jefferson to Francois D’Ivernois, 1795

You can understand how important the concept of inherent rights for a free society when you consider that from a Jeffersonian point of view the only reason for the existence of Government is to secure the inherent rights of those who elected it, and that the only basis for the authority of Government is that it has the consent of the governed.

The Special Meaning of Unalienable Rights

Inherent rights were given a special qualifier by Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers of the USA: unalienable. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, unalienable is defined as “incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred”, i.e. something which cannot have a lien or claim placed against it. The idea is that unalienable rights are yours, period, as long as you live. They can neither be bought nor sold. They can’t be used as bargaining chips. Any system which would allow the “selling” of rights would inevitably lend itself to plutocracy or rule by the rich, because they would buy up everyone else’s rights and thus ultimately enslave them.

The Deceptive Transformation from Unalienable Rights to “Inalienable” Rights

As an aside to the main discussion of inherent rights, one piece of trickery is worth highlighting. The de facto corporate US Government (not the de jure government of the US Republic as authorized by the US Constitution) changed the wording of the Constitution and other legal US documents when it took control of the USA in 1871, the year it incorporated itself. This was when admiralty, maritime or commercial jurisdiction started to creep onto the land and overtake common law jurisdiction. This impostor (the corporate US Government) substituted the word inalienable for unalienable.

What’s the big deal, you may ask? A lot, actually. It’s not just semantics. Changing that one vowel at the start of the word changed the meaning immensely. Unalienable rights are those which cannot be sold or transferred, whereas inalienable rights can be! As this source states:

“You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent, either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons [i.e. corporations] have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.”

So that one tiny change resulted in an entirely new system where your rights are subject to the whims of Government and tyrants, if you choose to unwittingly enter into that jurisdiction.

Beware of Fake Rights and Authorities Disguising Privileges as Rights

It is crucial to be able to distinguish between genuine inherent rights and State-granted fake rights, which are actually privileges in disguise. As soon as you introduce a governing body or authority which grants itself the power to issue “rights”, you no longer have inherent rights. You are put in the position of needing to request, ask or beg for your fake rights. The authority then has power over you by deciding whether to grant your permission or not. In societies which descend into tyranny, it is a very common theme that those which challenge the governments and speak out against corrupt authorities are denied certain things which they would normally otherwise get – if they just kept quiet and went along with the status quo.

Two examples are worth mentioning here. The first are the US “Civil Rights” signed into law by LBJ during the 1960s. As much as I deeply respect Martin Luther King and the struggle to end racism and discrimination, the civil rights passed to appease those demanding change were not the natural, unalienable, inherent rights upon which US law is based; they are fake rights or privileges.

The United Nations’ collectivist Universal Declaration of Human Rights seems so noble and beneficent, but’s it a prime example of privileges disguised as rights. The Rockefeller-created UN believes it has the power to grant these human rights, so they are not unalienable or inherent rights.

Likewise (and this may be disappointing to some) the universal human rights declared by the UN (United Nations) are fake rights. The UN was set up by the Rockefellers at the end of WW2 to ultimately become the One World Government of the New World Order, something which the League of Nations was never able to achieve. The Rockefellers donated the land upon which the UN buildings were constructed. The UN is an entirely collectivist organization, based on the principle that the group takes supremacy over the individual, and that individual rights must be sacrificed for the greater good. The human rights of the UN are no inherent rights, but rather are issued with conditions attached by a governing body, which could at a later date modify them. Look at these clauses from The Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

“These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” – Article 29

The purpose and principle of the UN is a centralized One World Government (under the control of the elite). So if we don’t accept this purpose, are we not allowed to exercise our rights and freedoms?

“Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.” – Article 28

New World Order, anyone?

What If I Don’t Live in the US? Do I Still Have Inherent Rights?

The answer to these questions is a resounding YES! You don’t need to live in the US with the Declaration of Independence/Constitution, or the UK with the Magna Carta, to gain or be worthy of natural rights. Every single human has inherent rights. They are universal. It doesn’t matter if for instance Australia doesn’t have a Bill of Rights like the US. You still have a right to life and to liberty. You still have a right to breathe, eat, drink, sleep, freely associate, hold whatever opinions you want – and a right to travel too. The question is not whether you have these inherent rights – the question is whether your Government will respect them or not. That will depend on how true you can hold to your convictions, and how close you are in your country to a critical mass of people collectively asserting these natural rights, so that a Government can no longer ignore them away. Judging by the fantastic growth of the sovereign freeman movement all over the world (including Canada with the likes of Robert Menard and Dean Clifford), I would say we are rapidly approaching a time when Governments will have no choice but to accept them.

Inherent Rights are a Spiritual Knowing Playing out in a Legal Arena

Once people remember and recognize their true state – that they are sovereign beings and the master/creator of Government – they will naturally recognize their inherent rights and no longer doubt their existence or seek permission from any outside authority to ordain, legitimize or justify them. It’s the outer legal manifestation of an inner spirit knowing that we are all worthy and that Government only exists for our benefit.

 

Sources:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/DOCUMENTS/JEFFERSON/jeff1.html

http://www.gemworld.com/usa-unalienable.htm

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-an-introduction

http://deanclifford.info

The post We All Have Inherent Rights – Regardless Of Whether A Nation’s “Authority” Recognizes It appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

VIDEO: Cops Taser Innocent Unarmed Man in the Back for Saying, “I Know My Rights”

Aurora, CO — An innocent man settled a lawsuit this week for $110,000 after cops were seen on video deploying a taser in his back as he stood there with his hands up.

The incident happened in February 2016, when the victim, Darsean Kelley, and his cousin were stopped by police. Officers were in the area responding to a weapons incident at a nearby apartment building and Kelley happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Police had no description of the suspect and decided to harass Kelley and his cousin.

Kelley was naturally upset that he’d been targeted by police for no reason, so he was verbally expressing it. He never once physically resisted, however.

As the incident begins, police tell the two men to put their hands in the air. Both of them comply. Then the officer yells for them to interlock their fingers on top of their heads. At this point, Kelley continues to ask why he is being detained.

Advertisment

The cops answer back by refusing to tell him why. Just as Kelley says, “I know my rights,” the taser is deployed into his back and he falls to the ground. Naturally, after police assaulted him for no reason, Kelley was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct — for asking a question and being tasered in the back. After spending three days in jail, he was bonded out.

The ACLU picked up his case and convinced the city to drop the charges against him.

“The body camera footage was indispensable in securing justice for Darsean Kelley,” John M. Krieger, a spokesman with the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, told Ars Technica. “Without irrefutable evidence of police misconduct captured on video, it would have been our client’s word against multiple officers, and the truth about what happened to Darsean would almost certainly have never come to light.”

READ MORE:  Cop Fired for Threatening to Kill a Man for Helping Someone File a Police Complaint

Predictably, the Aurora police department responded to the incident by exonerating all officers involved and wholeheartedly justifying the use of a taser in the back of an unarmed man with his hands up. In October, the department released its findings.

The IRB agreed unanimously with the findings of the Force Review Board that the use of force in this instance was reasonable, appropriate and within policy.

The IRB does not believe there is anything in this incident that warrants additional awareness, action or investigation.

Chief Metz has accepted the findings of the IRB and considers the matter closed at this time.

“The ACLU commends the City of Aurora for its willingness to come to the table in good faith to find a resolution that is fair to Mr. Kelley and beneficial for taxpayers of the city,” ACLU of Colorado Legal Director Mark Silverstein said in a statement. “However, the decision of the Aurora City Attorney’s Office to fairly and promptly resolve this matter stands in stark contrast to the actions of the Aurora Police Department, which at every turn has refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing or need for policy change even in the face of public outrage and irrefutable video evidence of misconduct.”

However, the City Attorney does not agree with the ACLU and noted it. Aurora City Attorney Mike Hyman said in a statement that the city settled so it wouldn’t have to spend even more taxpayer money defending a lawsuit, reports Ars Technica.

“We disagree with the ACLU’s characterization of the events in this case and their unwarranted attack against the Aurora Police Department,” Hyman said Thursday. “This case was settled for the reason that many cases are settled—to avoid the cost of prolonged litigation. That cost would have far exceeded the value of the settlement.”

READ MORE:  Police Said the Video Showing this Cop"s Excessive Force Did Not Exist, They Were Lying

In the Land of the Free, police can walk up to innocent people on the street, taser them in the back, charge them with a bogus crime, and this is called ‘justice’.

PERUTA v. CALIFORNIA – The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

---

TOP Dissent

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

EDWARD PERUTA, et al. v. CALIFORNIA, et al.

on petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

---

No. 16–894. Decided June 26, 2017

---

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Gorsuch joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arm[s] shall not be infringed.” At issue in this case is whether that guarantee protects the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. Neither party disputes that the issue is one of national importance or that the courts of appeals have already weighed in extensively. I would therefore grant the petition for a writ of certiorari.

I

California generally prohibits the average citizen from carrying a firearm in public spaces, either openly or concealed. With a few limited exceptions, the State prohibits open carry altogether. Cal. Penal Code Ann. §§25850, 26350 (West 2012). It proscribes concealed carry unless a resident obtains a license by showing “good cause,” among other criteria, §§26150, 26155, and it authorizes counties to set rules for when an applicant has shown good cause, §26160.

In the county where petitioners reside, the sheriff has interpreted “good cause” to require an applicant to show that he has a particularized need, substantiated by documentary evidence, to carry a firearm for self-defense. The sheriff’s policy specifies that “concern for one’s personal safety” does not “alone” satisfy this requirement. Peruta v. County of San Diego, 742 F. 3d 1144, 1148 (CA9 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Instead, an applicant must show “a set of circumstances that distinguish the applicant from the mainstream and cause him to be placed in harm’s way.” Id., at 1169 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). “[A] typical citizen fearing for his personal safety—by definition—cannot distinguish himself from the mainstream.” Ibid. (emphasis deleted; internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). As a result, ordinary, “law-abiding, responsible citizens,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 635 (2008) , may not obtain a permit for concealed carry of a firearm in public spaces.

Petitioners are residents of San Diego County (plus an association with numerous county residents as members) who are unable to obtain a license for concealed carry due to the county’s policy and, because the State generally bans open carry, are thus unable to bear firearms in public in any manner. They sued under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983, alleging that this near-total prohibition on public carry violates their Second Amendment right to bear arms. They requested declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the sheriff from denying licenses based on his restrictive interpretation of “good cause,” as well as other “relief as the Court deems just and proper.” First Amended Complaint in No. 3:09–cv–02371, (SD Cal.) ¶¶149, 150, 152. The District Court granted respondents’ motion for summary judgment, and petitioners appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

In a thorough opinion, a panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed. 742 F. 3d 1144. The panel examined the constitutional text and this Court’s precedents, as well as historical sources from before the founding era through the end of the 19th century. Id., at 1150–1166. Based on these sources, the court concluded that “the carrying of an operable handgun outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense . . . constitutes ‘bear[ing] Arms’ within the meaning of the Second Amendment.” Id., at 1166. It thus reversed the District Court and held that the sheriff’s interpretation of “good cause” in combination with the other aspects of the State’s regime violated the Second Amendment’s command that a State “permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home.” Id., at 1172.

The Ninth Circuit sua sponte granted rehearing en banc and, by a divided court, reversed the panel decision. In the en banc court’s view, because petitioners specifically asked for the invalidation of the sheriff’s “good cause” interpretation, their legal challenge was limited to that aspect of the applicable regulatory scheme. The court thus declined to “answer the question of whether or to what degree the Second Amendment might or might not protect a right of a member of the general public to carry firearms openly in public.” Peruta v. County of San Diego, 824 F. 3d 919, 942 (2016). It instead held only that “the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.” Id., at 924 (emphasis added).

II

We should have granted certiorari in this case. The approach taken by the en banc court is indefensible, and the petition raises important questions that this Court should address. I see no reason to await another case.

A

The en banc court’s decision to limit its review to whether the Second Amendment protects the right to concealed carry—as opposed to the more general right to public carry—was untenable. Most fundamentally, it was not justified by the terms of the complaint, which called into question the State’s regulatory scheme as a whole. See First Amended Complaint ¶63 (“Because California does not permit the open carriage of loaded firearms, concealed carriage with a [concealed carry] permit is the only means by which an individual can bear arms in public places”); id., ¶74 (“States may not completely ban the carrying of handguns for self-defense”). And although the complaint specified the remedy that intruded least on the State’s overall regulatory regime—declaratory relief and an injunction against the sheriff’s restrictive interpretation of “good cause”—it also requested “[a]ny further relief as the Court deems just and proper.” Id., ¶152.

Nor was the Ninth Circuit’s approach justified by the history of this litigation. The District Court emphasized that “the heart of the parties’ dispute” is whether the Second Amendment protects “the right to carry a loaded handgun in public, either openly or in a concealed manner.” Peruta v. County of San Diego, 758 F. Supp. 2d 1106, 1109 (SD Cal. 2010). As the Ninth Circuit panel pointed out, “[petitioners] argue that the San Diego County policy in light of the California licensing scheme as a whole violates the Second Amendment because it precludes a responsible, law-abiding citizen from carrying a weapon in public for the purpose of lawful self-defense in any manner.” 742 F. 3d, at 1171. The panel further observed that although petitioners “focu[s]” their challenge on the “licensing scheme for concealed carry,” this is “for good reason: acquiring such a license is the only practical avenue by which [they] may come lawfully to carry a gun for self-defense in San Diego County.” Ibid. Even the en banc court acknowledged that petitioners “base their argument on the entirety of California’s statutory scheme” and “do not contend that there is a free-standing Second Amendment right to carry concealed firearms.” 824 F. 3d, at 927.

B

Had the en banc Ninth Circuit answered the question actually at issue in this case, it likely would have been compelled to reach the opposite result. This Court has already suggested that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public in some fashion. As we explained in Heller, to “bear arms” means to “ ‘wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” 554 U. S., at 584 (quoting Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting); alterations and some internal quotation marks omitted). The most natural reading of this definition encompasses public carry. I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. See Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426, 444 (CA3 2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting) (“To speak of ‘bearing’ arms solely within one’s home not only would conflate ‘bearing’ with ‘keeping,’ in derogation of the [Heller] Court’s holding that the verbs codified distinct rights, but also would be awkward usage given the meaning assigned the terms by the Supreme Court”); Moore v. Madigan, 702 F. 3d 933, 936 (CA7 2012) (similar).

The relevant history appears to support this understanding. The panel opinion below pointed to a wealth of cases and secondary sources from England, the founding era, the antebellum period, and Reconstruction, which together strongly suggest that the right to bear arms includes the right to bear arms in public in some manner. See 742 F. 3d, at 1153–1166 (canvassing the relevant history in detail); Brief for National Rifle Association as Amicus Curiae 6–16. For example, in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (1846)—a decision the Heller Court discussed extensively as illustrative of the proper understanding of the right, 554 U. S., at 612—the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a ban on open carry although it upheld a ban on concealed carry. 1 Ga., at 251. Other cases similarly suggest that, although some regulation of public carry is permissible, an effective ban on all forms of public carry is not. See, e.g., State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616–617 (1840) (“A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional”).

Finally, the Second Amendment’s core purpose further supports the conclusion that the right to bear arms extends to public carry. The Court in Heller emphasized that “self-defense” is “the central component of the [ Second Amendment] right itself.” 554 U. S., at 599. This purpose is not limited only to the home, even though the need for self-defense may be “most acute” there. Id., at 628. “Self-defense has to take place wherever the person happens to be,” and in some circumstances a person may be more vulnerable in a public place than in his own house. Volokh, Implementing the Right To Keep and Bear Arms for Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research Agenda, 56 UCLA L. Rev. 1443, 1515 (2009).

C

Even if other Members of the Court do not agree that the Second Amendment likely protects a right to public carry, the time has come for the Court to answer this important question definitively. Twenty-six States have asked us to resolve the question presented, see Brief for Alabama et al. as Amici Curiae, and the lower courts have fully vetted the issue. At least four other Courts of Appeals and three state courts of last resort have decided cases regarding the ability of States to regulate the public carry of firearms. Those decisions (plus the one below) have produced thorough opinions on both sides of the issue. See Drake, 724 F. 3d 426, cert. denied sub nom. Drake v. Jerejian, 572 U. S. ___ (2014); 724 F. 3d, at 440 (Hardiman, J., dissenting); Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F. 3d 865 (CA4), cert. denied, 571 U. S. ___ (2013); Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F. 3d 81 (CA2 2012), cert. denied sub nom. Kachalsky v. Cacace, 569 U. S. ___ (2013); Madigan, 702 F. 3d 933; id., at 943 (Williams, J., dissenting); Commonwealth v. Gouse, 461 Mass. 787, 800–802, 965 N. E. 2d 774, 785–786 (2012); Williams v. State, 417 Md. 479, 496, 10 A. 3d 1167, 1177 (2011); Mack v. United States, 6 A. 3d 1224, 1236 (D. C. 2010). Hence, I do not see much value in waiting for additional courts to weigh in, especially when constitutional rights are at stake.

The Court’s decision to deny certiorari in this case reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right. See Friedman v. Highland Park, 577 U. S. ___, ___ (2015) (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 6) (“The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions”); Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco, 576 U. S. ___, ___ (2015) (same). The Constitution does not rank certain rights above others, and I do not think this Court should impose such a hierarchy by selectively enforcing its preferred rights. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 1) (“ Second Amendment rights are no less protected by our Constitution than other rights enumerated in that document”). The Court has not heard argument in a Second Amendment case in over seven years—since March 2, 2010, in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742. Since that time, we have heard argument in, for example, roughly 35 cases where the question presented turned on the meaning of the First Amendment and 25 cases that turned on the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. This discrepancy is inexcusable, especially given how much less developed our jurisprudence is with respect to the Second Amendment as compared to the First and Fourth Amendments.

*  *  *

For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it. I respectfullydissent.

(bold is mine)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/16-894

Congressman calls for restriction of “social media” following baseball game shooting

ALEXANDRIA, Virginia (INTELLIHUB) — Congressman Rodney Davis (IL-R) told Fox News that “political rhetorical terrorism” may be to blame for the “senseless shooting” of several top-level U.S. officials and their aides during a baseball practice session at Simpson Field Wednesday morning.

“This political rhetoric and political discourse that has led to hate, has led to gunfire,” the congressman from Illinois said. “I never thought I’d go to baseball practice for charity and have to dodge bullets. This has got to stop and it has got to stop today […] We got to ratchet down the rhetoric that we’ve seen, not only in the social media but in the media, in the 24 hour news cycle.”

Via Intellihub

©2017. INTELLIHUB.COM. All Rights Reserved.

---

Shepard Ambellas is an opinion journalist, analyst, and the founder and editor-in-chief of Intellihub News & Politics (Intellihub.com). Shepard is also known for producing Shade: The Motion Picture (2013) and appearing on Travel Channel’s America Declassified (2013). Shepard is a regular contributor to Infowars. Read more from Shep’s World. Get the Podcast. Follow Shep on Facebook and Twitter.

---

Actually, Congress did undermine our Internet privacy rights

Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) (Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

According to those who supported the repeal, the rules never took effect (they were scheduled to do so throughout 2017), so the repeal doesn’t change anything. You hear it from the likes of AT&T as well as lawmakers like Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ), the author of the legislation who was asked about it at a recent town hall. You are hearing it now in state legislatures that are working diligently to fix the gap Congress created.

But that argument is meant to distract you from the real issue – you had a legal right to privacy from your broadband provider, and when Congress repealed the broadband privacy rules using the Congressional Review Act (CRA), Congress diminished that right and may have hamstrung the FCC from enforcing it in the future.

Here are the facts.

The FCC’s Broadband Privacy Rules Were Based on a Law Passed by Congress

All regulations passed by federal agencies must be founded in laws passed by Congress. In essence, a regulation from a federal agency is supposed to be a means of enforcing the law. Here, the underlying law is Section 222 of the Communications Act (under Title II of the Communications Act). Congress created Section 222 in 1996 as a means to protect our privacy from telecommunications carriers who have unique access to our communications and personal information. There was a window of time when Section 222 did not apply to broadband companies, but as a matter of law today it does. When you look at what the House and Senate said about the law when they passed it, it is clear Congress intended Section 222 to create an affirmative right to privacy in our communications.

The CRA repeal had a direct effect on Section 222. Obviously if the ISPs spent close to $8 million lobbying Congress to pass it, it must have had some impact. Here is what their money bought. Before the broadband privacy repeal, Internet providers had an obligation to follow all of the legal duties and responsibilities that protect our right to online communications privacy per Section 222 through FCC enforcement. But when Congress utilized the CRA to repeal the FCC’s broadband privacy rules, they effectively told the FCC “you can’t enforce the law in this specific way.” There was a lot to like in the now repealed privacy rules, but now that Congress has prohibited the FCC from enforcing those rules (or passing “substantially similar” rules) as a matter of federal law, it is basically up to the states to step in to fully restore our privacy rights until a new federal law is passed or the courts minimize the impact of the repeal.

Some More History on Section 222 in Terms of Broadband Privacy

From 1996 until 2005, Section 222 applied to telephone service and DSL broadband. It was unclear how the law applied to cable modems because the FCC had not explicitly decided how to classify broadband Internet through cable, though cable companies were generally regulated as television providers by the FCC. In an attempt to resolve this discrepancy and harmonize the application of the law the FCC embarked on a long and ultimately failed journey to classify broadband service as an “information service” under Title I while still retaining oversight akin to that for Title II telecommunications carriers through a now defunct legal theory known as ancillary jurisdiction.

This means that even when cable modems were “information services” as of 2002, and DSL in 2005, the FCC still believed it had authority over broadband companies to do things like enforce network neutrality—and did so during a Republican administration. However, Comcast defeated the “ancillary jurisdiction” theory in the courts and Verizon later defeated the FCC again assuring that anything classified as an “information service” under Title I is no longer subject to any meaningful consumer protections (this is also why Comcast, Verizon and AT&T want to be classified as information services today). If the FCC wanted to retain consumer protection authority over broadband companies, they needed to re-evaluate how it applied the law.

As the high speed broadband market became less competitive and given the dramatic power Internet providers can wield over how we use the web, EFF and others strongly advocated that the FCC put broadband back under Title II of the Communications Act so that the agency could enforce simple, light-touch regulations to protect privacy and net neutrality. The FCC (and federal courts) agreed, and in 2015, in a victory for fans of Internet freedom, the Commission re-classified broadband providers as telecommunications carriers under Title II. That means the law Congress passed in 1996 to protect our communications privacy, Section 222 of the Communications Act, once again clearly applied to all broadband Internet providers.

And This is What Congress Took Away

The FCC’s now-repealed and prohibited privacy rules divided Internet subscriber’s personal information into three distinct categories, each requiring broadband companies to get different types of consent from their customers before they could use or disclose that information. Those categories were “sensitive,” “non-sensitive,” and “exceptions to consent.” Sensitive information, including browsing history, app usage data, and the contents of communications, was given the highest protection. Before they could legally use that information for anything other than providing Internet service, your Internet provider needed your explicit opt-in consent.

The FCC agreed with privacy advocates including EFF that carriers have a legal duty under Section 222 (a) of the Communications Act to protect the “confidentiality of proprietary information of…customers.” The now repealed privacy rules were the FCC’s attempt to define the contours of that legal duty. The other category of information that was subject to opt-in consent was “customer proprietary network information” (CPNI), defined as “information that relates to the quantity, technical configuration, type, destination, location, and amount of use of a telecommunications service subscribed to by any customer…made available to the carrier by the customer solely by virtue of the carrier-customer relationship.” The full list of what the FCC considered CPNI can be found in paragraphs 58 to 84 of the now repealed Report and Order.

To reiterate, all of these consumer protections listed above are now prohibited as a matter of law and the FCC is not allowed to interpret and enforce the communications privacy law in this way at this time. That is, in essence, what Congress took away with its CRA repeal.

The Cable and Telephone Industry are Not Done Eliminating our Rights

Now that they have a law, Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon are coming in for the final blow against both privacy and Internet freedom. FCC Chairman Pai recently released his plan to reclassify broadband Internet provides as Title I information services. Make no mistake, such a plan will not only end Internet freedom by drastically enhancing the power of Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon to dictate the future of the Internet, but it will assure that any vestiges of privacy protections that remain under a neutered Section 222 are completely removed. Worst yet, the plan ignores the obvious gap in consumer protection that exists for telephone companies ever since the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that common carriers are exempt from FTC enforcement as well for the western United States.

We must put a stop to this plan. We came very close to stopping the broadband privacy repeal, and now we have to redouble our efforts, recruit more of our friends, and tell Washington D.C. that we value a free and open Internet that is protected by law.

Via EFF

Senate puts ISP profits over your privacy

The Senate just voted to roll back your online privacy protections. Speak up now to keep the House from doing the same thing.

ISPs have been lobbying for weeks to get lawmakers to repeal the FCC’s rules that stand between them and using even creepier ways to track and profit off of your every move online. Republicans in the Senate just voted 50-48 (with two absent votes) to approve a Congressional Review Action resolution from Sen. Jeff Flake which—if it makes it through the House—would not only roll back the FCC’s rules but also prevent the FCC from writing similar rules in the future.

That would be a crushing loss for online privacy. ISPs act as gatekeepers to the Internet, giving them incredible access to records of what you do online. They shouldn’t be able to profit off of the information about what you search for, read about, purchase, and more without your consent.

We can still kill this in the House: call your lawmakers today and tell them to protect your privacy from your ISP.

Via Electronic Frontier Foundation

Featured Image: Tristan Schmurr/Flickr

Judge Navarro Says Defendants Have Only 3 Rights – Bunkerville Standoff Trial

By Shari Dovale and John Lamb

Todd Engel, of Boundary County, Idaho, is among those fighting for his life in a Federal Courtroom in Nevada.

Todd Engel (photo: Facebook)

Engel has been representing himself, and do very well by all accounts, in the Bunkerville Standoff Trial being held in Las Vegas. He is well spoken, articulate, and personable. His arguments are well thought out and relevant.

In describing the events on April 12, 2014, he told of how everyone thought it was over, and the cows were to be released. “It was festive. It was flags and cowboys,” said Engel in his opening statement. “It doesn’t get more down home than that.” But, they soon learned that it was not true. The FBI and The BLM were still there, threatening all the protesters.

Engel had decided to represent himself after his attorney, John George, showed less-than-professional representation. There are reports of this attorney actually falling asleep during court and walking out in the middle of proceedings.

During this week’s court proceedings, Engel cross examined an FBI agent. The prosecution objected to Engel’s questions over 50 times, yet, Todd did not allow himself to get flustered. Towards the end of his questioning, Engel asked, “Is it true that [Special Agent In Charge] Dan Love is under criminal investigation?”

The prosecution blew a gasket. All four prosecutors stood up yelling objections. They claim that Engel violated rules that prohibit the defense from discussing the criminal investigation of Love. All of this was stated in front of the jury.

Judge Gloria Navarro not only sustained their objections, but she took it a step further. Navarro told Engel that he had lost his privilege to self-representation and must now allow his standby attorney to handle all court business. Engel was no longer allowed to talk in her courtroom.

If this wasn’t bad enough, Navarro went even further on Thursday.

At the end of the day, Engel stood to make a plea to Judge Navarro. Contrite and soft spoken, he begged to be allowed to defend himself in this trial.

Attorney George was less than impressive throughout the day, spending only a few minutes on cross examination of witnesses. Engel states that George did not comply with any of his requests, and is not representing him well.

Judge Navarro berated Engel and said that he cannot tell his attorney how to defend him. “It is up to him. It is his discretion.”

Not only did Navarro deny his request, she laid out the only rights that she would allow him to have.

Navarro told Engel that she would decide if he would be given the privilege of delivering his own closing arguments, and that would be based on her interpretation of his behavior and attitude through the rest of the trial.

Then, she went on to tell him that, “You, as a defendant, have only THREE rights.”

:She said that he had the right to:

1. Plead Guilty


2. Testify on his own behalf


3. Appeal his conviction

That’s it. Three rights is all he is allowed, by Navarro’s royal decree.

This same judge has banned the US Constitution in her courtroom.

Navarro refused to let him speak after this. She said that she would not listen to anything from him again, and he was not to address her again.

As soon as she finished chastising him, and stripping him of all of his God-given, Constitutionally-guaranteed rights, she adjourned the court. I am told that this was all said on the record.

These men have been incarcerated for a year or more. They have been denied bail. They have been denied a speedy trial. They have been denied the right to face their accuser (Dan Love). And so much more.

They are being denied all protections under the US Constitution by this Federal Judge.

Where is the law of the land? It is not in Las Vegas, Nevada.

The Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The 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.