This is Disturbing.

(This post has been updated and has changed from it's original content)

I ran across this piece of news a few days ago and, I have to say, it’s a little worrisome.

This news piece is about a Department of Justice memo basically saying they can kill any American citizen without due process (outside of America).

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/04/confidential-justice-department-memo-killing-american-citizens-with-suspected-terror-ties-ok/

And here  is the actual text of the memo.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf

So to sum this up, our government has decided that it has the power to kill American citizens outside of this country if they deem it necessary. I know that it says there are restrictions and that three conditions must be met. However the final call comes down to the President declaring a person to be a threat, with our without evidence, and that person can be eliminated.

Now I have always been of the mind that if you take up arms against this country, and you are a citizen, then you have committed treason and have voluntarily forfeited your constitutional rights. Much the same way if a person breaks into your home with the intention of harming you or your family he has given up his rights to life and liberty and you may defend yourself accordingly. If you choose to attack American soldiers or citizens you should be ready to face the consequences. My worry is the possibility of the  misuse of this power. The white paper leaves what could be a lot of leeway in it, especially when it calls for there not to be a need for evidence.

I've kind of alluded to this sort of thing before. Any law or regulation that doesn’t clearly state its boundaries and goals can be used way out of context to achieve things it was never meant to lead to. On the flip side, I also understand that the battlefield is not a place for lengthy deliberation and that sometimes action needs to happen alot sooner rather than later.

Basically, my fear is about just how far this power can be taken. I'm not saying our government is going to start bombing political dissenters during the next election. I'm just pointing some stuff out.

I should hopefully have some more posts coming soon. I’ve been writing a bunch of different things so as to build up a buffer to avoid long breaks between posts.

Thank you for reading. God bless all of you and God bless the United States of America.

The Answer (Part Two)

I hope you all had a chance to look into the last posts question. The articles I showed you in the last post come from the constitution of a particular regime. All in all the rights given by it weren’t that bad. Some weren’t too different from our own laws. But there is a twist. So, are you ready for the answer? Well here it is.

That constitution belonged to none other than Nazi Germany.

Shocked or a little surprised? Privacy of correspondence, a representative assembly, elections, and the right to assembly in Nazi Germany? I hate to say it, but it’s true. A common misconception by many people is that when Hitler came to power he abolished the Reichstag (parliament), the constitution and a number of other laws. Not really. He pretty much said he was above all of that and didn’t see a need to change much of it. That is not to say he didn’t do some maneuvering.

 Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany January 30, 1933. After continued political battles between the Nazi Party and other parties in the Reichstag, Hitler asked the President to dissolve the assembly and have new elections in early March 1933. However, before the elections took place the Reichstag building was set ablaze on February 27. Hitler and his cronies blamed communists (though many are of the opinion that the Nazis started the fire). Hitler said the nation was in a dire state and so the Reichstag Fire Decree was issued which took away basic liberties for a time, you know, in the name of security. The elections were held March 6^th but the Nazi’s still did not achieve a majority in the Reichstag.

Later that month Hitler brought the Enabling Act to a vote. This Act would give Hitler and his cabinet legislative powers for four years, again for security. To ensure it was passed Hitler used the provisions of the Fire Decree to keep several opponents out of the vote and the communists were already banned from attendance. After much reassurance and promises to his opponents the Enabling Act passed overwhelmingly. That coupled with the Fire Decree practically made Hitler and his cabinet a legal dictatorship.

Hitler now began to systematically erase any opposition. Rival parties were broken up and banned. Through the scare tactics of the SA, Hitler’s storm troops, he intimidated his opponents into resigning or running. Within months the Nazi Party was the only party in Germany and Hitler was running the show.

But what about the President, Paul von Hindenburg? He was still the head of state and had veto power (this was one of the promises Hitler made to get the Enabling Act passed). Well, on August 1^st the cabinet passed a law that stated upon Hindenburg’s death the office of president would be abolished and all the powers of the head of state would go to the Chancellor. Hindenburg died the next day (in this case, at least, it wasn’t murder). Overnight Hitler had become the absolute leader of Germany. He had become the Führer. And to top it off, it was nearly all legal.

Sure he used physical and political intimidation as a tool. But he was appointed Chancellor, he didn’t take it. The laws that made him a dictator were voted on. His blatant disregard for constitutional law was ignored, especially by the people at large.  Even his becoming Führer was approved by 90% of the vote. He then led his 1,000-year Reich into complete desolation in twelve years. He murdered millions and is responsible for the deaths of millions more. All of this was done without changing or abolishing the constitution. He didn’t need to. He just made some laws that ignored the basic rights of the people and no one challenged him. No one in great enough numbers at least.

So what is the lesson to take away from this? First I want to make clear that I don’t think the current or and administration in the near future is going to be the next fascist regime. That’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that words on paper don’t mean a thing without belief in what they stand for and without someone to see them through.

The Second Amendment affirms we have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms. There literally are law-makers saying we should just ignore it now. The Fourth Amendment protects us from unlawful search and seizure. This has been violated countless times, especially in the event of an “emergency” (see Hurricane Katrina and the War on Terror). These are just ink blots on paper if no one will stand up for them. Those in power can, and regularly do, ignore the laws of the land to further their agenda. If the Constitution doesn’t fit with how they feel, they work around it. Changing it is too much work.

So here’s my request. When you see a scenario where a politician or any elected official is operating outside of the law or is trying to undermine our Constitution, call them out. Write to them, to Congress, to the President himself (I’ve done all of these). If nobody speaks up then why would these people think they have to worry about opposition? You can sit there and say “that’s not right” all you want but if you and everyone like you keeps their mouths shut nothing will happen. Use that First Amendment that way it was meant to be. We don’t live under a king or dictator (yet) so you can say what you need to.

Remember, the most dangerous enemy we face is denial. Hitler seemed a hero to Germany, (yes, there were a lot of extenuating circumstances). But his actions leading to power were clues if not to the demoralized German people than certainly to the rest of the world, (heck, if you had read Mein Kampf Hitler said exactly what he was going to do years before he did it). And, the most dangerous thing an American can say is “they can’t do that” or “that can’t happen here”. No one in Germany, outside of Hitler’s closest, could have imagined concentration camps designed to murder countless innocents. People say they can’t take our guns. I ask why? If we don’t say anything they’ll try (“try” being the operative word).

So read the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. They go hand in hand. I consider them to be two chapters of the same document. Know what they say and don’t fall for the crap some people are saying today that it’s outdated and should be done away with. The Founders words ring true even centuries later. Don’t let America slip through your fingers with apathy and good intentions. That is the path to tyranny.

Thank you for reading. God bless all of you and God bless the United States of America.

The Test (Part One)

Firstly I apologize for the massive delay in continuing The ‘76er. As I’ve said before this blog isn’t my job (yet) so I’ve been busy. But again, I thank you for your continued support.

 Anyone who visits this blog could probably tell that I am a staunch believer in the Constitution and the people who developed it. I believe Locke, Paine, and other helped lead to the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration led to the Constitution which defends the American Idea. That document is our earthly guiding light on how to conduct our business as a nation.

Over the past year or so I’ve been in an increasing number of political debates and discussions (go figure). The talks vary from gun rights, to political parties, to states rights and other topics. But it generally all boils down to how things work under our Constitution, the importance of that document, and the ideas of those who drafted it. Much as you’ve heard the slogan “freedom isn’t free”, which it isn’t, I would also say “democracy is not self-sustaining”. The Founders never thought that once they signed that piece of paper that it was a free ride afterwards. Whenever a republic gets lax it falls. That has been seen throughout history.

Despite this I’ve run into a number of people that seem to think either democracy is just a spectator sport or that the Constitution can stop people from doing things. While the words have meaning they are just drops of ink on some paper. The words can mean all they want but without people who believe in them that’s all they will remain. When this topic comes up, especially in regards to government power, I find a lot of people who say what I’ve called the most dangerous words an American can say: “they can’t do that”.

Remember what I said the most dangerous enemy we face is? It’s denial. That can, and quite often, goes hand in hand with saying a person can’t do something just because a piece of paper says they can’t. “They can’t take our guns away”. Why not? “They can’t limit our speech”. Why not? “They can’t suspend the Constitution”. Why not? By the way that last one, suspending the Constitution, they totally can by law. Does that one make sense?

So I got to thinking. If it’s on paper does it really make a difference? If a government tries to operate outside of the defining law of the land can they be stopped? Or if that government knows that the law can get in their way do they have to change it to achieve their goals? Let’s take a look.

Below are some articles taken from a constitution during the 20^th century. Take a moment to read through them.

·         The [nation] is a republic.
State authority derives from the people.

·         As far and as much the [government] does not make use of its right to legislate, the states are entitled to legislate. This does not apply to the areas in which the [government] has the exclusive right to legislate.

·         The [representative assembly] is composed by the representatives elected by the…people.

·         Members of [the representative assembly] represent the entire nation. They have to follow nothing but their conscience and they are not bound to instructions.

·         The…President is elected by the entire nation.
Every [citizen] who has finished the 35th year of his life is eligible…

·         The [nation’s] President, when taking his office, swears the following oath:
I swear to devote my energy to the welfare of the….people, to increase its prosperity, to prevent damage, to hold up the…constitution and its laws, to consciously honour my duties and to exercise justice to every individual.

·         Judges are independent and subject only to the law.

·         All [citizens] are equal in front of the law…

·         …communities speaking a foreign language may not be deprived by legislation of their national identity, especially in the use of their mother language in education, in local administration and jurisdiction.

·         The rights of the individual are inviolable…

·         Every [citizen’s] home is an asylum and inviolable…

·         Privacy of correspondence, of mail, telegraphs and telephone are inviolable…

·         Every [citizen] is entitled, within the bounds set by general law, to express his opinion freely in word, writing, print, image or otherwise…

·         It is the supreme obligation and natural right of the parents to raise their offspring to bodily, spiritual and social fitness…

·         Youth is to be protected against exploitation as well as against moral and spiritual dissipation, bodily neglect…

·         All [citizens] have the right to assemble peacefully and unarmed; such assemblies do not require any prior notification or special permit.

·         The education of the youth has to be provided by public institutions.

Text in brackets replaced terms that would have otherwise revealed the name of the nation.

Now here’s the part I want you to do. I want you to try and figure out what government operated with this constitution. I’d prefer you didn’t try and use Bing or Google but that’s fine. But I want you take just a moment of your time and see if you can discover it. This is part of the “get involved” thing about democracy.

I’ll give you a few hints. The constitution was in effect for roughly 26 years. The country was formerly a monarchy. This country is in Europe. That may give it away if you just guess. But go ahead and try. If you get it right and want to let me know email the blog: freedomblog76@gmail.com.

In a few days I’ll make another post revealing the answer and go over the results.

Thank you for reading. God bless all of you and God bless the United States of America.

A Battle Ensues?

First of all I would like to welcome you back to the ’76er. I hope everyone had a great Christmas and a Happy New Year. A lot has happened over the weeks that the blog has been on a break (sorry for the major delay). Most of all, and on the forefront of all our minds, is the massacre of twenty innocent children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. And we’ll be going over that in this post among other things.

I titled this post A Battle Ensues? for a number of reasons. While the Constitution has been whittled away for decades and the size of government has grown explosively in just the last few, we have in the last eight or so years seen an aggressive drive to take the power out of the hands of the people and place it firmly in those of the government. It is something that needs to be talked about out loud because if you refuse to address the existence of the problem then it can never be solved.

I know that many people have notice that I have railed against the Obama Administration and they sometimes draw a conclusion that I must have loved Bush’s presidency. I hate to tell you, but that’s false. I petitioned against that administration many times throughout its term, called for criminal charges against Bush himself,  and I can partly thank it for contributing to my becoming politically active. And so we shall begin with President Bush and the War on Terror.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not looking for the perfect President. That’s a tough search because such a thing doesn’t exist. I’ve been known to say that everything started going downhill after Washington. But something changed on September 11, 2001 and it took a while for most of America to see it. Those who are diligent caught it pretty early on though. That day marked the first real time mainland America was attacked (significantly) and the result was devastating. Nearly 3,000 Americans dead, buildings destroyed, and the feeling of safety shattered by an enemy we never thought could touch us. We were right to be afraid at the time. But fear often leads to action. And action born of fear is usually not well thought out. At least not with the rights of citizens kept in mind.

I’ve quoted Benjamin Franklin before as saying anyone willing to give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserves neither. Keep that in mind as we move forward.

In the whirlwind of activity that followed the terrorist attacks we started two wars, initiated a global “war on terror”, and passed major legislation all in the name of security, freedom, and justice. At the time it was generally hailed as a triumph against our enemies and a show of force to those who would aid or shelter them. However, in those achievements of security we have to stop and ask ourselves at what cost were those strides against terror paid? Remember Ben’s words.

The Patriot Act was passed overwhelmingly and practically without opposition in 2001. The Act can grants expanded freedom of wiretapping and surveillance on American citizens. It allows the government to name anyone an “enemy combatant” or “terrorist” no matter what the circumstances of evidence of guilt. It even threatened the privacy of citizens of British Colombia. That’s in Canada, a whole other country. But would our leaders really allow infringements on our Constitutional rights? They probably had no idea. Congressman Jim McDermott is on record saying that the Senate didn’t even read the bill. So there’s that.

The Military Authorization Act and other bills allow the President to use the U.S. military as a policing force inside the borders of America. This is a direct violation of law but in the wake of the terror attacks it passed as well. I’ve had numerous conversations with people about these and various other bills that have been passed in the interest of security. I do agree that steps were needed, and still need, to be taken to ensure our safety. However, those measures should never come at the cost of the Constitution or our inalienable rights. Warrantless wire-tapping, arrest without cause, denial of due process and numerous other violations of our freedoms should be cause for alarm.

People say that it makes us safer and in some instances is does. But we have to consider the cost: our rights. I’m a big believer in “the slippery slope”. A person can be detained without reason for an indefinite amount of time under the suspicion of terrorism, which in itself is loosely defined. That goes for American citizens as well. You may say “well they won’t do that to innocent people”. Let’s be clear, if an American can be arrested and thrown into isolation for several years without contact with a lawyer or anyone for little to no reason, (this did happen by the way), then they can do it to anyone. It sets up the ability for tyranny.

Now I’m not saying all laws work this way and lead down that path. Making it illegal to j-walk won’t lead to your freedom of travel to be taken away. But if you ban a few things people can say you set the precedent to ban any or all speech. If you ban one kind of gun you can ban any gun. There are some glaringly obvious dangers in laws out there and we need to sit up, take notice, and say something about it.

So, we’ve touched on Bush’s administration (I know we could go farther back but I’m trying to keep it short). Let’s move up to Obama. Obama has nearly finished his first term and is about to begin his second. His first four years have been interesting. He has signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law. Some things are still coming out about it but it has sections so vaguely worded about how to define actions as “aiding terrorism” that some journalist made a point that simply asking their questions could be consider illegal.

Most controversially he championed his healthcare reform, more commonly known as Obamacare. Does/did healthcare need an over haul? Yes, it has for years. However we need to look at this thing very closely. I won’t get into the details about the tax increases and rise in healthcare costs (which most analysts in country are predicting). People still haven’t finished reading the darn thing yet so I’m sure more will show up later. What frightens me is just what this bill says the government can do and scarier still, that the Supreme Court said was constitutional.

Obamacare states that you have to have health insurance. I’m sure nobody thinks it’s a bad thing to have insurance. However, if you don’t get it you will be fined. Wait a minute. How can you say you want to help people with their medical bills and then bill them for not being able to get insurance? But here’s the scary thing I mentioned above. This means that the government can coerce you into doing what they want, so long as they can call it a tax. What? That is not how the Constitution was meant to be used. This is a blatant misuse of power. And that misuse has spanned multiple presidencies.

Now, let’s take a look at more recent events. Last month, a madman murdered his mother, stole her guns, and slaughtered twenty children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. This was a nearly incomprehensible act of evil committed in a place where we would like to think our children are safe. It was terrible, cold, and it is something we won’t forget. That being said, there were some expected results of this.

Gun control was instantly thrown to the forefront of the situation practically within minutes of the event. Now I know we just spent a three part series about gun rights so I’ll try not to make this an impromptu “part four”. Whenever something like this happens this subject always comes up. Without getting into too much detail we already know that gun massacres are not nearly as common as the media tries to say they are (they’re less than 1% of all gun crime). We also know that “assault weapons” aren’t widely used as crime weapons (all rifle types make up less than 4% of gun crime). And we also know what where there are more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens there is less crime (juxtapose gun violence in Chicago with the levels of Phoenix). I could give a load more of facts that basically disprove everything the main-stream media is saying about guns and gun control. Connecticut has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Didn’t help, did it?

The only way guns can be brought into this scenario is that the mother displayed irresponsible gun ownership. She feared her son was mentally disturbed enough that she may have committed him. Then why did she allow access to the weapons and teach her son how to operate them? There’s your problem.

But back to gun control. Now you have all the usual people involved. Bloomberg, Feinstein, the Brady’s, and Code Pink to name a few. They paint gun owners as mentally disturbed at best and murderers as worst. They blame the NRA for the evil perpetrated by a single disturbed individual instead of the murderers. So, just like always, new legislation is being proposed. Obama (we’ve gone over his record before) created a panel and gave them thirty days to come up with ideas. Being headed by vice president Biden (very anit-gun) I can guess as to what those ideas will be. We’ve heard of the use of Executive Orders and the banning of magazines, ammo, and “certain types” of rifles. Senator Feinstein’s proposal is the most restrictive gun legislation ever seen.

Like I said above, I’m not going to hinge this post on gun control but it is a large part of the bigger picture. The Second Amendment exists so that the citizens of this country can defend themselves in the event of invasion or from tyranny. It is not about hunting or sport shooting (although those inherently come from gun ownership). I’ve said before, the Second Amendment holds up the rest of the Constitution. That’s a fact. Look up what the Founders said about firearms. And now, because of the actions of a few madmen the rights of millions are in jeopardy. This goes far beyond gun rights by the way. This is about our rights as a whole, period. Ask any gun owner.

Looking back, the previous administrations have slowly but surely expanded the power of government and chipped away at the strength of the people. This has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats. But now we look at those currently in power and see the things that are happening. Never before has the Constitution been on such a perilous edge as it is right now.

I mentioned earlier why I entitled this post A Battle Ensues? I chose this title mainly for this reason: this country hasn’t been this divided in over a century, both politically and socially. It seems, to me, that the country has split into two general camps. One moving forward towards a secular, government dependent, big government, unarmed future. The other trying to hold on to what made this country what it is and to honor those that came before us. The recent attacks on our rights, in particular our right to keep and bear arms, has caused further division and has greatly angered one side. The 49% that didn’t vote for Obama, which would be the latter of the two groups I described, is furious. I speak for most of this group when I say I am not happy in the least with the direction this country is headed. Those in power need to understand that they work for us, not the other way around.

Now there have been people appearing on various media networks referencing revolution and a new 1776. Truthfully a lot of these people do not represent the majority of conservatives and they are chosen to appear to make them look bad. I personally believe in the idea set forth by the Declaration of Independence. That idea is that when a government becomes destructive in the execution of its role, it is the right and duty of the people to abolish said government and replace it. I’m not saying pick up your rifle and let’s go. That wasn’t our Founders first choice. What I’m saying is that just as the government needs to realize they work for us, we need to remember that they work for us and remind them of that. Write your Senators and Congressmen, I have repeatedly. Write to the President and the political organizations that you think need to change and start listening to us. Grass roots starts with you. Our path to Independence centuries ago was grass roots. Without the individual citizen a country, a cause, an idea is nothing.

A Battle Ensues? I think a serious battle is on the horizon. One that will decide the course of this nation. One that will decide the role of our Constitution in the future. One that will show where we stand as Americans. Will you sit back and watch from afar? Will you be in the thick of it? Or will you, in apathy, leave the fight to others and hope for the best? The battle is here and it’s time to choose.

Thank you for reading. God bless all of you and God bless the United States of America.