Our Civil Liberties

“…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…” -The First Amendment from the Bill of Rights

Our Civil Liberties

In in this day and age, the violations of our civil liberties have gone into epidemic levels. We know this. I’ve created this information in order to be reminded on how we should fight for our civil liberties. Our rights makes us become reminded about how we can live our lives to the fullest. Our freedoms don’t exist from the government or some bureaucrat. They don’t even exist from us. They exist from Almighty God being undeniable and unalienable. Life, liberty, and Property are related to each other. John Locke wrote in his "Second Treatise of Government" book that people want to preserve their property and power should be limited among the government. So, it's easy to decipher that life, liberty, and property were the central, inalienable rights that formed America. The founders believed in the triumvirate division of government (which is the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government) whose rights are bound to each other. When one part of the government does injustice, it affects all of the government. Some of our political leaders claim to love life and liberty, but they pervert our rights by promoting illegal wars and plunders. The right to life is more important than the right to property since one's lives is more than any possession. Yet, the right to property is vitally linked to the right to life since the right to own property is an extension of the right to life. Property is simply what an individual rightfully owns. Labor can improve property as well. We can use our body, conscience, and our actions to improve the realms of our property. Labor for the individual can improve our happiness as well. That is why we shouldn't deny an innocent person the right to own property (or legally benefit in his or her own labor. There‘s always value in labor). The Founding Fathers of Jefferson, Madison, Samuel Adams and others realized that the paramount role of government in essence was the protection of our liberties. In the 21st century, threats to our civil liberties occur constantly. That's all the more reason for us to be more educated on our rights. We shouldn't accept deception and we ought to love the truth While numerous Americans are blinded to our diminished liberty, the big, central government operators abide to enact policies detrimental to our fundamental God-given rights. It just seems that the world will sink even lower in trying to eliminate the need for rationality. For thousands of years, laws in Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Europe influenced our laws in America (like the Constitution, state laws, etc.). A heavy contributor to our law is the Magna Carta that was created in 1215. This law restricted the excessive power of Kings and other rulers in the land of Britain. The Magna Carta created rules that developed habeas corpus and the right of juries to determine cases. Habeas corpus protects us from being imprisoned unlawfully. It made King John of England to proclaim certain rights to freemen and respect rights. It confirmed common law that influenced the legal perimeters of the English speaking world. The English Bill of Rights from 1689 (including George Mason’s 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights) was a group of legitimate laws that inspired the existence of the Bill of Rights as well. The English Bill of Rights supported explicitly the right of the people to petition the King. The people have a right to give grievances to those holding office. The Blackstone’s Commentaries is one of the greatest legal documents in history. It’s related to our U.S. laws and outlined key, succinct principles that are universally legitimate to respect plus accept in our lives. In Book 1, Chapter 1 of Blackstone’s

Commentaries the point is made that “every individual” has “the right of petitioning the king, or either house of parliament, for the redress of grievance.” These Commentaries had pro-life and other pro-liberty provisions in them as well. Of course, the Bill of Rights endorsed a host freedoms like the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, the right to not be searched without a warrant or probable cause, the right to have a trial by jury, to not have cruel and unusual punishment, etc. You have to appreciate the Anti-Federalists in supporting the Bill of Rights. Since without them, the Federalists like Alexander Hamilton could have their way in getting rid of the Bill of Rights centuries ago. Civil liberties should be protected not only among those with whom we agree with, but also with those people we disagree with. The mainstream media may spin, but our liberties are being violated all of the time. There can be long books on even simple examples of this. One easy example is the abrupt militarized police using random searches against innocent citizens of major cities like New York City. Nationwide,

there are illegal checkpoint monitoring citizens even within the border. The deal is that the DHS can set up an internal checkpoints in the United States anywhere in the region (of ca. 100 miles of the actual border) and question citizens. There is the U.S. Border Patrol having a policy of using 100 miles from the border designed as border checkpoints. These illegal checkpoints force citizens to answer questions about their citizenships. One person named Edgar Ayala (a Forks High School athlete and graduate with honors) was arrested in August 20, 2008. He was later deported to Mexico. People have demonstrated against the Forks Border Patrol checkpoint. These random checkpoints definitely have an authoritarian feel to the society of the U.S. Even the ACLU opposes this strange policy as a Constitutional free zone. This is occurring in New Mexico as well. The mainstream media like those from MSNBC (who is owned by GE plus others. General Electric is a transnational corporation that manufactures helicopter engines used in Iraq and Afghanistan. GE is complicit in the war on terror, yet so-called liberals are on there trying to lecture us on issues) are whining about protesters using their First Amendment right disagreeing with Obamacare when our Founding Fathers and colonial people back in the day did a lot more than just yell at people. They used self defense against the imperialist British redcoats, threw tea in the water, went out and preached against tyranny, yelled at the top of their lungs to disagree with the policies of the Crown, and other things. Not only is GE complicit in mass murder, it also pled

guilty in federal court to civil and criminal charges of defrauding the Pentagon and agreed to pay $69 million to the U.S. government in fines — one of the largest defense contracting fines ever. It’s hypocritical to condemn the protesters as so-called “right wing extremists” when these protesters exist from all sides of the political spectrum. Even ABC News had to admits that these protesters are real and aren’t funded by the health care insurance industry at all. Then

Congress people won’t even read the health care bill (It has over 1,000 pages in it. It can potentially fund abortion and have a centralized database) then expect us to accept it. The health care bill limits judicial review as well. There is nothing wrong with being respectful in expressing dissent, but being angry or yelling isn’t illegal. It’s totally American to yell at evil people, criminals, or deceivers trying to violate the Bill of Rights and Constitution. It’s not anti-democratic (as that Mormon Harry Reid lied about) to democratically speak your mind. Some of these hypocrites omit how a protester (who was an

African American male called racial slurs by hypocritical liberal extremists) was assaulted by SEIU thugs near St. Louis Missouri. There is an African American woman (who is a proponent of Barack Obama’s health care proposal) whose sign of Rosa Parks was tore up by an old man for no reason whatsoever. That was evil. She claims that racism was the motive for the sign tore up since she said that other signs were in the building with slurs, etc. I don’t believe in harassing people or unfairly demonizing anyone like President Barack Obama, but expressing our First Amendment rights in a constructive way is fine with me. CFR member and managing director of Kissinger and Associates David Rothkopf called Americans and those who oppose the Obama health care plan morons like the coward he is. David denies that the government wants to pull the plug on grandma in the health care bill.

Under Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation,” practitioners must explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” in other words the government will be in the business of recommending euthanasia in order to “bend the curve” on health care costs, as Charles Lane noted in The Washington Post. This isn’t equivalent to euthanasia, but this is wrong since the government has no right to recommend end of life procedures toward anyone. That’s between the patient, the family, and a doctor not the government. Also, some authors of this bill and White House officials like Ezekiel Emanuel want a scale of coverage depending on age. Later, this liar Rothkopf says that we have nothing to complain

about. That’s a lie since exporting millions of jobs to foreign slave labor gulags, stealing trillions of dollars from the people and giving it to the criminal banksters, polluting the food supply with GMO and soft kill weapons, installing a military police state and hightech surveillance grid, and torching the very fabric of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are legitimate items to complain about. He demonizes Christians and others. His mentality is what exactly the global elite think of us. They think of us as cattle and obstacles to their sick global government plans. We have a right to disagree with David Rothkopf‘s extremism completely. The lies aren’t working since most people oppose the banker takeover, the gun grabbing, the violations of our civil liberties, and other evils. Even President George W. Bush has been terrible in terms of civil liberties. He passed laws that violated the Bill of Rights and Constitution like the Patriot Act, FISA Amendments Act of 2008, Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, he allowed torture policies to exist (as supported by John Yoo and others), Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, Amended Presidential Executive Orders, and the revocation of Posse Comitatus Act (in his various executive orders and laws).

*Our civil liberties are definitely worth fighting for. For the longest time, I’ve wanted to write about this issue. Now, I have a chance to do it. Some members of Congress and the elite are liars. They claim that they want common ground on abortion and then they refuse to get rid of Roe (which is a federal takeover of the abortion issue). They claim to not to get rid of our guns when they support anti-gun legislation in the Congress. Even Rahm Emanuel wants everyone in the no-fly list to not own guns when many people in that list are innocent of any crime. Legislation sponsored by the

The Government Accountability Office seeks to “close the gap” and prevent victims of the terrorist watch list from being able to purchase firearms. They claim that vaccines are all safe when even mainstream scientists have exposed some dangerous vaccines for decades. They claim that the climate bill is beneficial when much of the carbon trading system will financially benefit people like Al Gore and Maurice Strong. It will give taxpayer money into big corporation and international institutions. The climate change bill won‘t effect big polluters China or India at all. It will give polluters a free pass to pollute if they have a carbon tax. The carbon tax/cap and trade plans have been rejected even in European nations (along with many scientists rejecting man-made global warming). The Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act would similarly criminalize free speech on the Internet if it can be deemed in any way to have been “harmful” to an individual. “Harmful” is ambiguous at best that can limit free speech. This represents the end of political blogging and free speech on the world wide web if these bill was passed and enforced. . People don’t trust the establishment in increasing numbers. Individuals want to be legitimately free.

Police Brutality

Police brutality is always evil. Frankily, you have to thank cell phone cameras and other videos recording it. If these items never existed, the police would of lied and denied most police brutality existing in the first place. The Republican National Convention’s police response in 2008 was worse than even the DNC. The reason might be that more criticism is directly toward the Republicans. That still is never an excuse for the law authorities to arrest innocent protestors in St. Paul, Minnesota at all. There is many examples of illegal crackdown of dissent in the Minnesota area. Indy bay from September 2, 2008 outlined how a woman was pepper sprayed in the face by the police. She was innocent and was assaulting no one at all. She was just showing a flower to the militarized police with black uniforms (looking like the Nazis). Glenn Greenwald from Salon on September 2, 2008 classified the RNC 2008 as the most militarized convention on record. There has been raids against innocent people. One example was Amy Goodman (though a Left Gatekeeper) was unlawfully arrested in downtown St. Paul, Minnesota during that time. She was trying to free two Democracy Now producers who were also being unlawfully detained. They are Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar. They were arrested while carrying out their

journalistic duties in covering street demonstrators in the RNC. Goodman was assaulting no one and questioned the officers. Protestors were attacked with tear gas as well. It isn't just them. Other journalists have been harassed as well. For example, members of I-Witness Video, which is a New York-based media watchdog group that records police activity in order to protect civil liberties, were arrested for no reason by police. Armed police surrounded one of the members' home. Glen Greenwald has been on the front lines exposing this. Glenn Greenwald reminded readers on Sunday, that the Minneapolis Joint Terrorist Task Force spent months recruiting people to spy on activist groups who were planning on to protest the RNC. So, Glen deserves credit on the police oppression in these affairs. It doesn't take rocket science to know certain aspects of the government want certain forms of dissent quelled in American soil. These events aren't extraordinary. Militarized police were in many conventions before 2008 and raids against innocent citizens have been common place for decades. Now, people are starting to realize this police state atmosphere exists not only in America, but throughout the world. It's worse in other countries where you can be arrested and jailed for just dissenting with the status quo of the government like China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, etc. Andrew Meyer was tasered for just answering a question. That can't be a reality in the future if we want our civil liberties protected. Government has always worked best when it's limited by what it can and can't do. The government and law enforcement should be held accountable for these immoral duties.

Tara Vreeland from NewsOn6 on June 12, 2009 described news about the EMT wanting accountability from the Oklahoma Highway Patrol. EMT Maurice White says he is in a way glad that the scuffle with the Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper occurred. The reason is that it means that problems will be addressed and dealt with. He wants accountability from the OHP as he told the News On 6. “This situation can never happen again,” said Maurice White. Maurice White doesn't want to see anyone else in the position that he was in at the business end of a choke-hold from Oklahoma Highway Patrol Trooper Daniel Martin. White thinks that it will happen again to someone else unless some questions are answered. Maurice White wants light on the problems with the OHP and in order for things to move forward. White says even when flattened against his ambulance, he was worried about the patient in the back. It was a woman suffering from possible heat exhaustion whom he and his partner were taking to a hospital. The truth is while a cop is choking an innocent man (who wasn't even yelling at the cop), a woman was strapped to a gurney with an IV, and EKG, and oxygen. This person can't moved and she is hearing her family members scream outside that was tortured for her. She never deserved that. They (or his partner Paul Franks) didn't deserve this treatment from Trooper Martin. If a trooper did this to another trooper or other professionals, that trooper would be fired or suspended for a long time. The paramedics never started the scuffle as the dash cam video proves. The trooper was out of control and showed total disregard for the patient in the ambulance completely. The trooper said that he returning from Iraq caused him to act in that fashion, which is a lame excuse. White told The News On 6 he holds the OHP in the highest regard and says they generally are the epitome of professionalism when it comes to police work. White's lawyer, Richard O'Carroll, told The News On 6 that he will get the dash cam video, but it will take a lawsuit to do so which means there could be a civil lawsuit in the future. This should be America not a dictatorship. Unfortunately, dictator-like laws and policies exist in the United States of America. So, police brutality is an epidemic that must stop.

More Extreme Police Brutality is definitely occurring in America. William N. Grigg from Pro Libertate on May 31, 2009 have exposed this issue for many years. Irma Marquez was abused by Yonkers Police Officer Wayne Simoes. She is recuperating in a hospital. She was accused of "disorderly conduct" and second degree obstruction of governmental administration. Irma is a 45 year old woman from Yonkers, NY. She was physically assaulted in public in front of many witnesses. The incident was captured clearly on a surveillance videotape. The abuse was so bad

that she had a head injury, a loss of consciousness, memory loss, a jaw fracture, 2 black eyes, facial contusions, severe swelling and bruising, hemorrhaging in both eyes, lacerations to the nose, etc. You get the picture. You see that some of these cops are getting away of this stuff daily. It isn't just affecting minorities or the poor (which is wrong and we know about from the news, etc.). It's affecting all Americans for injustice against one person, affects all people worldwide. A Federal jury misplaced justice once again. She wasn't responsible for those injuries, but the injustice continued. Irma was just a home health worker. The police officer was never charged with criminal assault or any crime at all. On Wednesday (May 26), a federal jury ruled that Yonkers Police Officer Wayne Simoes didn’t violate Marquez’s civil rights when he lifted her from her feet and slammed her facefirst into the floor of the La Fonda restaurant on March 3, 2007. Simoes tried to stop a drunken melee at La Fonda. Marquez had too much to drink and was concerned about her niece. Her niece was injured in the brawl. Marquez stumbled to officers like Simoes. A generation ago, most of the police would allow her to leave the room with restraint. Simoes jacked her arm, bear hugged her, and picked up her face then slamming her to the floor. Irma is bleeding at her feet. No one aides her. Simoes put a knee on her back to arrest her. Testifying at the trial, Officer John Liberatore stated that Simoes clearly used excessive force against Marquez. The prosecution didn't want Fredericks' assessment of Simoes' action. Even though Westchester County District Attorney Janet DiFiore didn’t see fit to file criminal charges against the bully who face-planted Marquez, she zealously prosecuted the victim on spurious criminal charges that were quickly disposed of by a jury in May 2008. Janet was a hypocrite for lecturing on domestic violence when Irma was subjected to violence by a crooked cop. Wayne Simoes, petty thug and unpunished abuser of women, prefers to be called by the supposedly exalted title “Officer.” Marquez is not a real officer. He's a coward and an abuser of a woman.

Homeland Security

This has been a recently created bureaucracy that came about in 2001. People have accused this organization as going to be used to suspend the Constitution and create a dictatorial New World Order under the guise of “martial law.” Representative Ron Paul from Texas has observed that this “represents the biggest government reorganization since the creation of the Department of Defense in the 1940’s, and potentially the single biggest expansion of the federal government in our history.” With this plan, ex-President George W. Bush and Thomas Ridge, a Knight of Columbus and ex-head of Homeland SSecurity, did try to to revoke the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. This great law divulged that the U.S. military couldn’t attack civilian citizens of the United States or face fines and/or imprisonment. Air Force General Ralph E. Eberhardt (one of the heads of the military industrial complex during the 9/11 tragedy), head of the Bush’s new military Northern Command and even Democrat Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. of Delaware endorsed the ending of the Posse Comitatus Act.

This act should be preserved. Homeland SSecurity is one of the many expansions of the Executive Brach and that branch has too much power already in this country. The Homeland Defense Agency and Homeland SSecurity was conceived in the Clinton administration. Two men from two parties proposed it made up of Gary Hart [CFR globalist and Democrat] and Warren Rudman [Republican] in their “The Phase III Report of the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century” which is nothing more than a framework for a permanent military bureaucratic American police state. Homeland SSecurity reorganizes the whole executive and legislature functions of the U.S. government. It makes the National Guard a national police force and federalizes the work of science, mathematics, engineering, and made of tons of bureaucracies, etc. The illegal Homeland SSecurity agency is built upon FEMA. FEMA have blatant protocols on how to get rid of our Constitution and God-given rights during martial law which is illegal and immoral. Homeland SSecurity is even given power to control the border security, the Coast Guard, Custom Service, Border Patrol, and Transportation. Homeland SSecurity will also try to rule over activities of the Department of Defense and assume duties from the Department of Commerce to the FBI. This all was a reality by November 25, 2002 when the Homeland SSecurity Act of 2002 passed. It’s made up of 40 governmental agencies and most of the President’s Cabinet. The word “Homeland” is Nazi in of itself given the context of this Beast Security by reason of Adolf Hitler describing Nazi Germany as the “Homeland.” In German, the word Homeland means “Vaterland” or Fatherland so Ridge’s job is the same as Heinrich Himmler in Nazi Germany heading the S.S. and Gestapo.

The Second Amendment Part 2 "The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." -Blackstone's 1768 "Commentaries on the Laws of England" "A people armed and free forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition and is a bulwark for the nation against foreign invasion and domestic oppression." -James Madison (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President

The war on gun rights is real. Even the English Bill of Rights from 1689 supported the right of people to bear arms for their defense as allowed by law. The 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution perfectly says that citizens have a right to bear arms as exposed by these words: "..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." The Founding Fathers uniformly believed that the people had the individual right to bear arms. According to the writings cited in "That Every Man Be Armed." "Mr. Madison has introduced long-expected amendments…It contains a bill of rights…the right of the people to bear arms." -Trench Coxe (p. 76). Even the Supreme Court in the Heller vs. D.C. case says that the Second Amendment pertains to individual gun rights. People may deny that some people want to take away our guns, but some do. One example is how Diane Feinstein desired to ban firearms from citizens. The Violence Policy Center group says that: "...“gun] Licensing systems are very expensive to administer ... licensing and registration in America would have little effect on the vast majority of gun violence.” “[We are] the largest national gun control advocacy group seeking a ban on handgun production.” (“Politics, paranoia fuel war of words over guns”, The Times Union, October 18, 2004). Janet Reno said: "The most effective means of fighting crime in the United States is to outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian populace." (Addressing a 1984 B'nai B'rith gathering in Coral Gables, Florida, per affidavit written by Fred Diamond of Miami). Barack Obama may not want to do it, but he supports so much anti-gun restrictions that even innocent citizens will be greatly restricted on how they possess a firearms. There are stories where those with guns have saved other people's lives. Some dissent with that anti-gun agenda of the elite so much that some states are trying to take action. Montana wants to stop federal gun control laws. Montana's proposed gun laws may have the basis for a court showdown over states' rights (if the governor signs a bill to release some firearms in the state from federal regulation). The proposed law aims to exempt firearms, weapons components and ammunition made in Montana and kept in Montana from federal gun laws. The bill wants to prevent federal gun laws from effecting Montana, because Montana already has gun laws there. This can allow gun owners and seller to not be bound under federal regulations, license requirements, and background checks completely. "We'd like to just be able to make our own guns here in Montana and have the feds stay out of it," said Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, which helped draft the bill. House Bill 246 sailed through the Montana Legislature, but Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer has not yet offered a position on the measure, which awaits his action. The federal ATF hadn't made a firm position on the issue. "ATF is not going to take a position on this because we don't make any of the laws, we just enforce the laws that Congress makes," said Carrie DiPirro. DiPirro is the spokeswoman for the Denver field division, which oversees Montana. Congress can regulate interstate commerce as the Constitution says. This is why some promote gun regulation in America. In essence, those in Montana want the House Bill 246 to pass, because it promotes state's rights. The Second Amendment or gun rights is great to promote. Barack Obama may not want to ban all guns in America, but some of his allies do. Even Eric Holder supported the D.C. gun ban. That's all the more reason to promote the truth and preserve the right of self defense (even using arms if necessary). There are a record number of people owning guns now. According to Ammoland.com, data released by the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) reported 1,225,980 checks in April 2009. This figure is a 30.3 percent increase from the 940,961 reported in April 2008. Anti-Gun people are coming out in force. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is a Democrat. She acts like she is apart of the so-called Blue Dog Coalition, but she plans on introducing an assault weapons ban weeks ago. Kirsten is a junior Senator from NY that the NRA at one time rated

her high (because of her supposed advocacy of the 2nd Amendment when she isn't now). She even posed with fellow gun grabber Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Even Newsday said that Gillibrand transformed into an anti-gun zealot over the course of 3 months. Rep. Caroyln McCarthy brainwashed her to support many anti-gun policies like closing the gun show loophole, etc. Polls indicate a large percentage of voters strongly support the Second Amendment. McCarthy's new bill called H.R. 6676 wants to utilize the National Instant Criminal Background Check System for background checks on all gun store employees and dealers. This is a violation of individual privacy of course. The federal government has no right to know your gun records without due process at all. There are 3 other bills that would make it illegal for known or suspected terrorists to buy guns. See, "suspected" doesn't mean you're a terrorist. It means suspected, so potentially innocent citizens can be illegally deprived of their gun rights for just being classified as "suspected terrorists" by the government. The House is currently working on H.R. 2159, The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, which is being sponsored by Republican Rep. Peter King of New York. The bill would “increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.” Larry Pratt said that people who are advocates of the 2nd Amendment are called terrorists by the DHS "Rightwing Extremism" report, so they could be deprived of their gun rights. Senator Gillibrand is working closely with gun-grabbing organizations, including New Yorkers Against Gun Violence and the Brady Campaign, according to Matt Canter, Gillibrand’s spokesman. She sold out to anti-gun special interest groups. Of course, the NYC Police Commissioner Ray Kelly love this. This comes under the back drop of the lie that 90% of the guns used to commit crimes in Mexico comes from America. The truth is that only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S. Statistics reveal that most of the guns flowing into Mexico come from the black market, Russian crime organizations, South America, Asia, Guatemala, and the Mexican Army. Some want the assault weapons ban despite of it having no effect on crimes using guns virtually. Democrats are fearful of backlash have told the Obama administration they would “actively oppose” any renewal of the assault weapons ban. Democrat senators Jon Tester and Max Baucus warned they would “strongly oppose any legislation that will infringe upon the rights of individual gun owners.” The government regularly exploits gun violence as an excuse to target innocent law abiding citizens instead of solving moral issues in the right way. Solutions are teaching moral principles in society, education, build up communities, don't allow criminals to own a gun, and have concealed carry laws among citizens. It's imperative for us to learn about the tactics of politicians in trying to destroy the Second Amendment completely.

Individuals of many races, backgrounds, and ethnic groups legitimately promoted and fought for self defense, civil liberties, and gun rights throughout human history.

Some in the LAPD are at it again. There is a CBS news clip in California. It was featured prominently on the front page of Yahoo.com. It talked about how the LAPD are melting down 40,000 lbs. worth of "illegal weapons." They are doing this in their claim of preventing criminals from owning them. Yet, the catch is that most of these guns that are being destroyed are perfectly legal and were handed in by law abiding citizens (they kept them in their own home). The propaganda about this situation is staggering for those who know about firearms. The CBS clip gives the impression that all guns are illegal and owned by criminals. This is despite of the fact that the vast majority of the guns shown to be melted down are rifles and pistols. These weapons are perfectly legal. “We’re taking illegal weapons off the streets and putting them to better use,” states the LAPD officer at the end of the clip, failing to mention the fact that most of the guns being destroyed are perfectly legal (and were handed in by law-abiding citizens who had kept them at home). The anchor believes that the weapons could of ended up in the hands of criminals, which is a lie since some law abiding citizens gave up their own guns to be destroyed. The media is implying that the LAPD is going us a favor by destroying legal firearms. Only fully automatic firearms can be deemed “illegal,” yet most of the guns shown in the clip, which include a M1 carbine, used in deer hunting, a Walther PPK pistol, as well as a Winchester Ranger Model 120 shotgun. These weapons are completely legal to own. One officer showed a street sweeper Tommy gun, which is legal. The new anchors say that guns are delivered off the streets. The LAPD admits that they actually want legal guns destroyed by saying: “It’s not just criminals but people who have them in their homes that really didn’t want them - that’s where you get the kids accidentally shooting themselves.” The reality is that hardened criminals who want to commit more criminal actions in the future could care less about sending their guns to the police. Law abiding citizens giving up their guns could be defenseless from a home invasion

by a real criminal. It's Orwellian doublespeak to assume that legal firearms are "illegal weapons." The good news is that more and more people understand that the Second Amendment is about individuals having the right to own guns if they want to. If you are an innocent citizen, the government has no right to steal your guns at all. The police have done worse by stealing weapons from innocent people in the world before from Chicago to New Orleans. There has been some good news with gun rights. This story is found in the link of: http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/local/story/Tampa-woman-stops-armed-carjacker-withher-own-gun/lzk5OlbYpkC5occGcyQP_w.cspx. A Tampa woman stops an armed carjacker with her own gun. She refused to be a victim. A person gun on her car in May of 2009. The woman wanted to identify herself as "Adrianna." "I just leaned forward and punched him in the forehead with my gun," she said. The man "screamed like a girl and almost dropped his gun" as he ran away, she added. The Tampa police have arrested one suspect so far in what they see a pattern of carjackings. A-Keem Carr was arrested on related charges, but 2 others are believed to be preying on motorists in the Westshore area. Adrianna was pulling into the International Mall when the armed man jumped in her car. She talked about defending herself. "I didn't want to have to shoot...anyway over a car. But if it was going to be him or me..." Tampa Police warn the suspects are becoming more aggressive and may be prone to violence. Adrianna did the right thing to protect herself from a criminal. Now, the Second Amendment has been a key law that saved tons of lives throughout America for centuries.

Bowling for Columbine I wanted to show information on this issue for a very long time. A very prominent filmmaker sums up one description for Michael Moore. What propelled him to mighty notoriety was “Roger and Me.” That movie was about how General Motors downsized jobs and destroyed the working class communities in Flint, Michigan. “Bowling for Columbine” in my mind is the #1 lying, misleading propaganda flick about gun rights in history. Despite Michael Moore earning an Oscar for it, it’s a fake documentary. David T. Hardy and others have demolished this film so bad that here’s 3 major lies that Moore exhibited which are refuted: 1. Lie #1: Moore tried to equate the NRA to the KKK. He claimed that the NRA was founded in 1871 at the same time when the Klan became an illegal terrorist organization. He created an animated sequence where a Klansman became a NRA member to help light up a burning cross. The Truth: Former Union officers by the act of the New York Legislature found the National Rifle Association in 1871. The Klan was invented in 1866 and quickly became a terrorist organization. It became illegal by the Ku Klux Klan Act and the Enforcement Act in 1871 by President Ulysses S. Grant. Grant's vigor in disrupting the Klan earned him unpopularity among many

whites, but Frederick Douglass praised him, and an associate of Douglass wrote that African-Americans "will ever cherish a grateful remembrance of his name, fame and great services." Grant fought the Klan and was the 8th President of the NRA. The KKK has absolutely no relationship with the NRA at all. When Grant left office, the NRA elected General Philip Sheridan, who removed the governors of Texas and Louisiana for failure to suppress the KKK. In fact, the

JPFO (or the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Organization) recorded numerous racist gun control laws against African Americans and Jews. For example, a French Black Code in 1751 prevented blacks in Louisiana to own firearms. There were racist gun control laws in the U.S. from the 1700’s to the 1900’s (I.e. The Black Codes, gun bans in the pre and post Civil War South, etc.). The Gun Control Act of 1938 restricted Jews to possess firearms, which was supported by the Nazis. In the 1950’s and 1960’s, blacks organized as NRA chapters to obtain surplus military rifles to fight off Klansmen. Extreme gun control is truly racist. History bears out this fact. 2. Lie #2: Michael Moore claimed that Charlton Heston’s “cold dead hands” speech was in a Denver meeting that related to Columbine. . The Truth: The annual NRA meeting in Denver, which was preplanned. It had nothing to do with the events of Columbine. Heston's "cold dead hands" speech, which leads off Moore's

depiction of the Denver meeting, was not given at Denver after Columbine. It was given a year later in Charlotte, North Carolina, and was his gesture of gratitude upon his being given a handmade musket, at that annual meeting. 3. Lie #3: Moore believed that the shooting at Bwell Elementary School in Michigan where a little boy killed Karyla Roland is an example of the need to extremely limit or ban gun rights. He further said that the kid (who he portrays as a sympathetic youngster, which is sick) was from a struggling family, found a gun in his uncle’s house, and took it to school making people wonder why he shot the little girl. The Truth: The boy acted wild and he was suspended from school. He fought with Karyla on the day before he killed her. The uncle’s house was a crack house and the gun was stolen by his uncle in exchange for drugs. This was a dysfunctional family. This wasn’t a normal family and the gun was stolen. This gun wasn’t used by a law abiding citizen at all.

4. Lie #4: Moore wonders

whether kids at Columbine might be driven to violence because of the "weapons of mass destruction" made in Lockheed Martin's assembly plant in Littleton. Moore shows giant rockets being assembled.

The Truth: Lockheed

Martin's plant in Littleton doesn't make weapons. It makes space launch vehicles for TV satellites. 5. Lie # 5: Moore implies that his film is trying to stop fear mongering. The Truth: The whole film is an example of fear mongering directed against the Second Amendment. In it, Moore wants us to fear almost everything: Guns; gun-owners; America; K-Mart bullets; Lockheed-Martin; Dick Clark; Charlton Heston. He says that guns are the problem in crime, yet he supports more police in areas to use guns to stop crime in Los Angeles, and other places. This is hypocrisy on Michael Moore’s part since guns alone don’t kill people. People kill people in a myriad of resources since the dawn of human history.

History involving Self Defense and Gun Rights There is a long history pertaining to how self defense have been crucial to survival. This history definitely inspired the establishment of the Second Amendment as it’s a vital part of the Second Amendment. Some folks, even those with a college education, are ignorant on the history of the Second Amendment. As many realized, the Founding Fathers read the classical works of Tacitus and Livy in order to learn the errors of the Roman Empire and make their government better

than the components of the ancient Roman Empire. John Adams wrote that whenever he read Thucydides and Tacitus, "I seem to be only reading the History of my own Times and my own Life." Thomas Jefferson even commented that many Romans chose suicide than rather live their lives under an Emperor. I don’t agree with suicide though. Julius Caesar was a famous tyrant and murderer. After he used his army to subdue Rome, he fought against Gaul. Julius Caesar stole arms of the conquered towns or areas he collected. Henceforth, some founding Fathers like James Madison wrote in Federalist 41 that "the liberties of Rome proved the final victim to her military triumphs." In other words, if standing armies aren’t regulated properly, a tyrannical society is all but a certain to occur. Some ancient Romans had commonsense though. Cicero was a writer who rightfully commented that carrying a weapon for lawful defense is fine, while carrying a weapons to do a crime is evil. He defended Titus Annius Milo in 53 B.C. for the murder of Publius Claudius Pulcher. Cicero believed that In several specific ways, America itself has become very similar to the Roman Empire. These similarities between the Roman Empire and America now are: both are invading sovereign nation in unjustified circumstances, each legalized abortion, each once supported the evil of slavery, each are made up of tons of ethnic groups, each use the Eagle as apart of their national emblem, each pass laws that violate individual liberties, and each have a vivrant Christian population in its borders. Radical gun control didn’t start with the ACLU or others. Even in England, King Henry VII prohibited poor people from shooting crossbows or guns. That’s evil of course. In the 1600’s, Charles II and James II passed similar measure to disarm people deemed “untrustworthy,” they forced gunsmiths to register guns that they have worked on, and limited the import of guns. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 occurred. This allowed William and Mary to become the new monarchs. They wrote their Bill of Rights to guarantee people the right to keep arms in these words: “…That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law.” (Walter Laquer and Barry Rubin, ed., The Human Rights Reader, [New York: New American Library, 1979], 106). Of course, anybody deserves the right to bear arms, not just the Protestants. The area of colonial America had much more freedom than England did. Gun control laws did exist in colonial America though. Some of these gun control laws were very racist. Massachusetts and Plymouth colonies ban the sale of guns to Native Americans. Some black people back in 1700’s and 1800’s were restricted or even banned to own firearms (even if they were innocent citizens). Some laws were progun. A 1632 statute of Plymouth Colony ordered “that every freeman or other inhabitant of this colony provide for himselfe and each under him able to beare armes a sufficient musket and other serviceable peece for war with bandaleroes and other appurtenances with what speede may be….” These previous words are in older English obviously. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, (which was largely written by George Mason on June 12, 1776), nearly echoed verbatim Locke’s views on natural rights. Article One states:

"That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life, liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." Article 13 of the Virginia Bill of Rights further states: "That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

More Gun Facts and Statistics 1). According to this source (of “Violence, Guns and Drugs: A Cross-Country Analysis,” Jeffery A. Miron, Department of Economics, Boston University, University of Chicago Press Journal of Law & Economics, October 2001), countries with the strictest gun control laws also tended to have the highest homicide rates. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics from September 2004 (and the Naitons Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization in 2005), Brazil’s homicide rate is almost 3 times higher than the U.S. rate. Brazil has mandatory, licensing, registration, and maximum personal

ownership quotas. Brazil bans any new sales to private citizens. Since the mostly gun bans in Britain, it’s crime rates has accelerated worse. 2). Gun registration doesn’t completely work. According to David B. Kopel in 1992, Boston, Cleveland, and California have city and state registration of “assault weapons.” The compliance rate in Boston and Cleveland in the early 1990’s was about 1%. Ton Drane wrote an article called “Why Gun Registration will Fail” in the May 1997 of the Australian Shooters. Now, he found that Germany began comprehensive gun registration in 1972. The government estimated that between

17,000,000 and 20,000,000 guns were to be registered, but only 3,200,000 surfaced, leaving 80% unaccounted for. Even in Canada, gun registration of handguns in 1934 have caused over half of the registered handguns to be confiscated without compensation in 2001. In Australian government confiscated over 660,000 previously legal weapons from citizens. So, to assume that registration by the federal government can’t lead to confiscation is a myth. It historically happened before in Bermuda, Cuba, Greece, Ireland, Jamaica, and Georgia as well. 3). According to the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, from Fall 1995, every year, people in

the United States use guns to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.151 Of these instances, 15.6% of the people using firearms defensively stated that they "almost certainly" saved their lives by doing so. Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives than to take lives. The National Crime Victimization Survey from 2000 mentioned that when using guns in self defense, 91.1% of the time, not a single shot is fired.

4). As of July 2006, 39 states have right to carry concealed carry laws. This is the majority of the American population. Statistics show that in these states the crime rate fell after the right to carry law have become active. 9 states restrict the right to carry and 2 deny it outright. A Gallup survey from May of 2008 confirms that 73% of Americans believe nd

the 2 Amendment “guarantees” the right to keep guns, and that a mere 20% believe it exists to enable state militias.

Certain people believe that there aren't folks who want to ban all guns, but they are sadly mistaken. Here's just some words by a few of these anti-gun extremists.

Diane Feinstein, U.S. Senator from California: "Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." (Associated Press, November 18, 1995)

Rosie O'Donnell, Ex-TV Talk Show Hostess: "I think there should be a law-and I know this is extreme-that non one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns." (Ottowa Sun, April 29, 1999) [Note by me: Funny Rosie since even the Supreme Court ruled that the police aren't even required to protect every citizen in the U.S. and the phone # 9-11

can cause delay a simple gun used in self defense by preventing crime. Also, Rosie, you have a bodyguard who has a gun, so you're just a hypocrite whose a liberal extremist which can validate anything with the gun issue by fact so you cry fowl.] Major Owens, U.S. Representative from New York: "We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which we are currently owned, and follow that wi th additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no spring purpose." *This is a small taste of the anti-gun extremists who don't fully value the Bill of Rights for if you actually honored the Bill of Rights, they would accept the 2nd Amendment 100% graciously which they don't at all. People like Senator Dick Durbin, Senator Arlen Spector, Schumer, Feinstein, and others just want to deprive us Americans our right to bear arms. People have a right to own all types of firearms.

CFR member George Soros is working with the United Nations to harm the Second Amendment. A video shows that Rebecca Peters (who is the director of the International Action Network on Small Arms or the IANSA) is working with the United Nations plus government globally to grab guns. They are funded by the globalist George Soros. Peters is the Chair of the National Coalition for Gun Control. This group campaigned to tighten Australia’s gun laws in the 1990's according to Umut Foundation (which is an organization that wants individual disarmament in harmony with the European Union). Her research and advocacy helped to get sweeping changes like uniform gun laws across eight states, a ban on semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, and a year long buyback that destroyed nearly 700,000 weapons. Peters received the 1996 Australian Human Rights Medal for her country's highest human rights honor. Prior to working with IANSA, Peters worked for Soros' Open Society Institute. Soros has dedicated a large percentage of his income gained from manipulating international stock and currency markets to push for gun control. He exploits many establishment liberals and push his gun grabbing agenda. George Soros funnels cash via his OSI or the Open Society Institute to anti-gun groups like the Tides Foundation, the HELP Network and SAFE Colorado. "...He and seven rich friends founded their own political committee — Campaign for a Progressive Future — and spent $2 million on political activities in 2000, including providing the prime financial backing for the Million Mom March. OSI has supported UN efforts to create international gun control regulations and has singled out the United States for failing to go along with the international gun-prohibitionists,” notes the NRA. “The bottom line is that international gun banners want every gun — every single gun worldwide — to be under U.N. and government control,” notes Wayne LaPierre of the NRA. “And that includes your rifle, your shotgun, your handgun, and even family heirlooms that have been handed down from generation to generation.” Before Lou Dobbs was forced out of CNN, he exposed that the Barack Obama administration stands behind CIFTA or the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms. Obama and crew are pushing this treaty under the pretense that it will disarm drug cartels and criminals. The treaty's aspect introduces major gun control and most of which will affect average citizens. It can

nullify the 2nd Amendment completely. In 2009, Barack Obama told Mexican President Felipe Calderon that he would do everything in his power to get the U.S. Senate to pass the treaty. Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, international legal obligations are superior rank to national law. If the CIFTA treaty is ratified, and not having defined the exceptions to its many requirements within our Constitution, it would usurp U.S. sovereignty and open the door to additional legislation to support its application in U.S. law. “Obviously, the United Nations, from its very inception, has been one of the world’s most ardent gun control proponents. As anyone who has ever driven by the U.N. building in New York City knows, a huge statue of an American-made revolver with its barrel twisted in the shape of a pretzel greets every visitor. The CIFTA treaty is one of the U.N.’s pet projects in order to achieve this long-held ambition,” writes Chuck Baldwin. In October of 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the United Nations something. She told them that the U.S. would support negotiations of an Arms Treaty to regulate international gun trafficking. 2 weeks earlier, the U.S. joined a nearly unanimous 153-1 U.N. vote to adopt a resolution setting out a timetable on the proposed Arms Trade Treaty including an U.N. conference to produce a final accord in 2012. It's no secret that the U.N. have had a hostility toward gun rights for years. Secretary Annan back years ago called for international controls on firearms like world leaders even then French President Jacques Chirac desired a global tax on firearms. The UN Security Council's "Report of the Group of Governmental Experts on Small Arms" called for a comprehensive program of worldwide gun control and praises the restrictive gun policies of China and France. The dismantling of the Second Amendment as proposed by Soros, the U.N., and the globalists are apparent. They want an international treaty to make that reality more apparent. No one in the mainstream media is covering this issues except Lou Dobbs, who was unceremoniously bounced out of the media recently.

Threats Against Homeschooling Worldwide Hitler's Nazis banned homeschooling in their degenerate rise to power. To this day, Germany bans all homeschooling. The German Court recently forced 5 kids of a family to be held in state custod, because their parents homeschool their children. The case came about fr 6 hours in a grueling German Family Court session in early August. The Gorber family regained custody of their 3 year old son. The judge retained custody though of the 5 other Gorber children to the state. The case is having a pending deal with the government trying to force psychological evaluations of their parents. The court did allow increased visitation for some of the children up from one hour every two weeks that had been permitted since the children were seized in a surprise raid by the youth welfare office ("Jugendamt") and police. In January of 2008, Jugendamt and police officials surrounded the German home of the family while Mr. Gorber visited his wife at a local hospital where she had been admitted due to complications from her pregnancy with her ninth child. The oldest son, age 21, and a daughter, age 20, were not taken by the authorities, but all the other children were removed despite their repeated protests. This act was plan fascism plain and simple. They forced the children out of their family's home. The Jugendamt has been criticized for their excessive tactics. Once, fines were given to homeschoolers in Germany and other punishments are being enacted. That's why German homeschoolers have fled Germany. This is wrong. A member of the SPD party in Bavaria, Germany also stated in a recent radio interview that that "Imprisonment or fines in this matter are absolutely excessive in my opinion,

because homeschooling can provide very high-quality outcomes. This topic is definitely one which we must work through politically. There can be no black-white declarations, but we must discuss this without ideological blinders on." That's why pure educational choice and educational freedom ought to be promoted and perserved worldwide (not just in America).

The German government had dropped the charges against a homeschooling family. The charges relate to criminal child neglect. The German mother and father faced up to 2 years in jail. They also faced the loss of custody for homeschooling five of their children. This is according to a report from the International Human Rights Group. Spokesman Jose Thorton said that his group, which has been working on the case involving the Brause family from Zittau, Germany, heard from the local counsel about the government's decision. The German counsel member named Johannes Hidlerbrandt said that the court and the prosecutor are dropping the charges against Mr. and Mrs. Brause. The case involved custody of Rosine, Jotham, Kurt-Simon, Lovis and Ernst Brause. Thornton said the announcement came after the court received a detailed psychiatric report that there is no psychological harm to the children from homeschooling. The report also stated that the children have not been harmed, which is evidenced by their exit exams from high school. This means that the Brause family doesn't face up to 2 years in prison and the potential loss of their children. This decision is a big victory for this family and the home schooling families of Germany. The Brause family are Christians. They home school their children because they want to have parental responsibility before God and the law. The Home school Legal Defense Association researched this case closely as well. The HLDA help the Uwe and Hannelore family from Bissingen, Germany to escape persecution because they've homeschooled their children. Germany has a Nazi-era law that requires all children to attend public school. They justify this fascist law by claiming that they want to control which philosophical convictions are taught by parents at home. Therefore, home schooling in under seize in Germany since independent home schooling is banned in that nation. Now, I believe in educational freedom. Therefore, a parent has the right to send their children to any form of education that they desire.

Jury Nullification

Jury Nullification is an important legal concept to comprehend. Sometimes the judge tries to sway the jury in how to vote on a specific case. The judge's real role in a trial is to be a neutral referee in telling the jury about the case (and the jury's rights and responsibilities). A lot of times, the jurors don't realize their fundamental rights pertaining to a criminal case. The jury has the right to rule on the law itself and vote on the verdict based to their conscience. Some prosecutors would pressure getting rid of possible jurors who state their right of following their conscience. John Adams,

our second president, had this to say about the juror: "It is not only his right but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." Back then, many jurors realize their right to be notified of this right to judge the law and the defendant. Even the defense attorney would tell them about this right. The Founding Fathers believed that trials should exist by juries of ordinary citizens. These citizens would know totally their rights as jurors and this would make the government the servant of the people in a proper role not the master of the people. Even the Constitution provides five separate tribunals with veto power that are the representatives, senate, executive, judges and jury. Before a law gains the power to punish that law must first pass the test of each constitutionally guaranteed authority. Even the Founding Fathers accepted jury nullification. That means that the jury is a major way in which a law is tested before it is to be enforced. The Founders believed that the enforcement of the law must face tribunals before they are used to punish criminals. Thomas Jefferson said, "I consider trial

by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." Later, the jury allowed the freedom of the press to reign when they found John Peter Zenger not guilty of seditious libel. Zenger criticized the Governor of the New York colony. The jury rejected a bad law and followed their conscience. Even the jury voted to acquit William Penn for preaching Quaker religious doctrine (yet the UK

government jailed the jurors without food plus water or even toilet facilities for 4 days). England's highest court later supported the jury's right to find a verdict according to conscience. This led to the recognition of free speech, religious freedom, and peaceable assembly being apart of individual rights. The American Revolution was a respond to the English suppress of trial by juries plus other rights. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights blatantly supports trial by jury. Juries are a bulwark against bad laws like preventing slaves from returning to being enslaved again. Jury nullification

is a tool to end bad legal precedents and bad laws in general. Jury nullification powers have been concealed from American citizens (when jurors are only told that facts are only admitted in court). Researchers in 1966 found that jury nullification occurred only 8.8 percent of the time between 1954 and 1958, and suggested that "one reason why the jury exercises its very real power [to nullify] so sparingly is because it is officially told it has none." An officer of the court today isn't even allowed to tell the jury of their veto power. That is why the Fully Informed Jury Association or the FIJA is trying to educate juries on their rights to promote liberty plus justice for all. A jury has a right to understand their role in a court procedure. However, jury veto power is still recognized. In 1972 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the trial jury has an "...unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instruction on the law given by the trial judge." The pages of history shine upon instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law (473F 2dl 113). Thousands of innocent people have been in prison, because the trial juries aren't informed of their rights. America imprisons more people than any nation in the world by percentage. Some are in prison for victimless crimes. So, the trial by jury and jury nullification are vital legal parts of our society. We need to institute continuity and stability in our legal framework.

By Timothy