Over the past eight years, more than 200 newspapers have been shut down and more than 300 journalists and netizens have been arbitrarily arrested, tortured and sentenced to lengthy prison terms.”

Reporters Without Borders challenged the candidates to “pledge openly and unconditionally to respect freedom of information” and asked the candidates to commit themselves to the following four actions:

• Demand the unconditional release of the 52 journalists and netizens who are today imprisoned in Iran.
• Begin a fundamental reform of media law, aimed in particular at decriminalizing press law violations and guaranteeing freedom of information without discrimination based on language, religion or political opinion.
• Ensure that Iranian citizens have free, uncensored and unmonitored Internet access.
• End arbitrary actions and impunity. The murders of dissident journalists must not go unpunished.

Secretary-General of Reporters Without Borders Christophe Deloire wrote, “As long as these demands go unmet, Iranians will not be able to think of themselves as a free people.” I tend to agree with Deloire, however I will add that as long as people are being forced to comply with any arbitrary power, they can not think of themselves as free!

Regarding the actual election, many Iranians were considering a boycott of the election. Some who called for the boycott said that anyone voting was betraying Neda Agha-Soltan and others killed during protests over the 2009 Presidential election. The Ayatollah Khamenei said, even if “they don’t want to support the Islamic ruling establishment… Everyone must turn out.”

It seems the words spoken by the Ayatollah Khamenei may come back to bite him. An unnamed journalist in Tehran reported to The Guardian, “Even those who were undecided or completely set against voting are saying they want to cast a ballot to make sure that anyone like Jalili doesn’t win.” Saeed Jalili is regarded as the preferred choice of the regime’s ultra-conservative leadership. The preferred choice of reformers appears to be Hasan Rowhani, former chief nuclear negotiator. Rowhani was also secretary of Iran’s supreme national security council for 16 years. Despite the claims that “Rowhani won’t be allowed to win…” it appears that the supposed moderate was elected with nearly 51% of the vote. Regardless, the people of Iran will not be any freer, and the government of the United States of America will continue to push for an unjust war against the people of Iran based on lies.

Manning’s supposed crime is that he shared informations about war-crimes with Wikileaks, an act that Assange calls, “Conspiracy to commit journalism.” Assange continues, by writing the government “argues that Bradley Manning communicated ‘indirectly’ with al-Qaeda, a formally declared US ‘enemy’, and therefore that Bradley Manning communicated with ‘the enemy’… The court has banned any evidence of intent. The court has banned any evidence of the outcome, the lack of harm, the lack of any victim. It has ruled that the government doesn’t need to show that any ‘aiding’ occurred and the prosecution doesn’t claim it did. The judge has stated that it is enough for the prosecution to show that al-Qaeda, like the rest of the world, reads WikiLeaks.”

During a February 28 hearing, Manning made a statement explaining his actions, and plead guilty to 10 of the 22 charges, saying, “I felt I had accomplished something that allowed me to have a clear conscience based upon what I had seen and read about and knew were happening in both Iraq and Afghanistan everyday.”

All in all, Manning’s crime is that he is a whistle-blower of government war-crimes. Knowing that war-crimes have been committed, and that members of the military were killing civilians, at times doing so intentionally, it should come as no surprise that the CIA did not always know who it was targeting and killing in drone strikes. NBC News reports that, “About one of every four of those killed by drones in Pakistan between Sept. 3, 2010, and Oct. 30, 2011, were classified as ‘other militants’… The ‘other militants’ label was used when the CIA could not determine the affiliation of those killed.” This has prompted questions about how the agency could conclude those killed were a threat to U.S. national security. Thus far, no one in the government has any good answers to these questions.

Some people, like Jeremy Byellin, argue that the copyright law needs to be complex because “the current U.S. economy is arguably more reliant on copyright protections than it ever has been in its 237 year history.”

I disagree. The current copyright law is so complex and convoluted that it is often difficult to tell when a work’s copyright has expired. The general rule is “life of the author, plus 70 years,” however there are exceptions to that rule. If a work was published between 1923 through 1963 with copyright notice but the copyright was not renewed, that work is now in the public domain; if a work was published during that same time period and the copyright was renewed, the copyright extends to 95 years after publication date. There is also a formula for “work of corporate authorship” that grants copyright protection for 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first.

In 1998, during debate on the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Mary Bono said, “Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to strengthen our copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As you know, there is also Jack Valenti’s proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress.”

Fortunately, the Congress has not yet considered a proposal to extend copyright protection to “forever less one day,” however, there are other proposals that would further criminalize sharing information. Before he committed suicide, Aaron Schwartz was charged with two counts of wire fraud and 11 violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, charges carrying a cumulative maximum penalty of $1 million in fines plus 35 years in prison, asset forfeiture, restitution and supervised release. What was Schwartz’s crime? He downloaded academic journals from a website that allows people to download academic journals! When Schwartz downloaded a copy of the journal, he did not deprive anyone else of having access to the journal as would have happened if he stole a physical copy of a book. After all, Nina Paley reminds us that copying is not theft; when you use information to guide your action or configure your own property, the originator of the idea still has it!

Kelley B. Vlahos reports for Antiwar.com, “The lawsuit is particularly timely, considering recent scandals in which the Department of Justice secretly seized months of journalists’ phone records at the Associated Press, and did the same and more to a FOX News reporter, while the IRS is acknowledging it singled out conservative groups that criticize the government for extra scrutiny.” The lawsuit alleges that the FBI began monitoring Antiwar.com’s activity in 2004, roughly a year after the invasion of Iraq.

According to the suit, the ACLU has made several futile attempts to obtain the FBI files since a reader alerted Garris and Raimondo to a lengthy FBI memo in 2011. The suit also alleges that it is clear that the FBI has files on both Garris and Raimondo. Vlahos also reports, the FBI agent writing the heavily redacted 94-page “memo on Antiwar.com recommends further monitoring of the website in the form of opening a ‘preliminary investigation …to determine if [redaction] are engaging in, or have engaged in, activities which constitute a threat to national security.’”

In a May 23 interview, Director of Operations Angela Keaton said that the investigation likely began after Antiwar.com posted a link to a terrorist-watch list in April 2004. She also stated that “people in the antiwar movement have been under investigation since World War 1, this is nothing new.” However, what happened with Antiwar.com is different in that it has been an ongoing investigation over at least a 9 year period. Julia Harumi Mass, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, which is representing Antiwar.com in the case said, “FBI surveillance of news organizations interferes with journalists’ ability to do their jobs as watchdogs that hold the government accountable.”

The lawsuit states, “In October 2011, one of Antiwar.com’s major donors withdrew his financial support from Antiwar.com out of concern that the FBI would monitor him if he continued to provide, as he wished to do, financial support to Antiwar.com. Since then, three significant donors have also withdrawn financial support, citing their fear that FBI interest in Antiwar.com would lead to surveillance of the donors as a reason for withdrawing financial support. As a result, Antiwar.com has lost about $75,000 per year since 2011 in otherwise expected contributions.” Mass says, “This illustrates the troubling, continuing efforts of the federal government to monitor protected speech activity without evidence or even allegation of criminal activity.”

Despite fears by at least three (former) donors to Antiwar.com, it is unclear, at this time, if the FBI is keeping tabs on any or all of Antiwar.com’s donors, though that information may come out in the trial. Mass concludes, “The government cannot keep records about people’s exercise of free speech unless it is related to a criminal investigation.”

Despite Mass’s objection that the “government cannot keep records about people’s exercise of free speech,” it is clear that governments do monitor activists who dare speak out against the violent and unjust actions perpetrated by The State.

Recently, one Robert Peck of the Washington Constitution Party did an article on Independent Political Report in response to my article, ‘As an Independent American‘, that was re-posted on IPR -in a poor attempt to rebut it, the arguments, and stated evidence for why I left the CP and joined the National IAP in the first place.

Indeed, while I will not answer every sentence paragraph he had written in his response, I will feature certain portions that do need to be addressed and respond to it in detail…

Mr. Quirk casts numerous aspersions on the Constitution Party. He makes statements that may cause some to believe that there are actually numerous national political parties of relatively equal strength that all hold the same Biblical and Constitutional values; that an organized effort is underway to unify those parties and that the Constitution Party refuses to take part in his unification effort due, in his words, to its being “petty,” “unscrupulous,” “sectarian,” “incompetent,” and made up of individuals who have demonstrated “sneering arrogance and haughty demeanor” and are “wolves in sheep’s clothing.” It should be noted that Mr. Quirk appears to have discovered the supposedly nefarious nature of the Constitution Party only after its choosing not to participate in his unification efforts.

Actually I was well aware of such a nefarious nature that existed in the Constitution Party previously- but since I was a member then, and wanted to help strengthen it, I largely keep my mouth shut until the past couple of months, and before then, tried in sincere fairness to include the members of the CP Executive and National Committees with the Clarion Call To Unite Committee and this great effort that we are still pursuing; we constantly sent out emails and even made phone calls to many of the members of these leading committees in the CP, only to be met by either silence or skepticism. And after the CP National Committee meeting had their meeting in Baltimore, to their zealous extent of rejecting the sincere and public efforts of the CCTUC- while greatly disappointed, I at first accepted the results of the meeting, that is until a good associate of mine that attended the Baltimore meeting had this to say about what had happened, and of course I became incensed when I then learned about specifics of the events at Baltimore. However, then again there have been times in the past where I have spoken out vehemently on certain internal matters that were dividing the CP at the time, and especially against certain individuals who were, at the time, also leaders of the CP.

On February 28 of this year, I was first made aware that something called the “Clarion Call to Unite Committee” (CCTUC) had been formed and was seeking “political unification of all constitutionalist parties,” according to a January 6, 2013 article at Independent Political Report. Mr. Quirk appears to head the CCTUC and I am aware of at least one other individual involved in the effort – there may or may not be others. The parties named in the January 6 article for which unification is sought, included the Constitution Party, National Independent American Party (not to be confused with the Constitution Party’s Nevada state affiliate by the same name), America First Party and the American Party.

Let’s take a quick look at each of the parties that CCTUC seeks to unite, indicating that by “joining forces” they can “turn the tide.”

Yes, I indeed contacted Mr. Peck and other national, regional, and state leaders of the CP, wanting to include them in our efforts, which only shows our intentions were sincere, open, and courteous.

The American Party, formed in 2006, only existed as a single state party in Florida and though the website is still up, they appear to have ceased operations in 2011 and are no longer listed with the Division of Elections.

Here’s where Mr. Peck gets it wrong again; the American Party was actually formed in 1969, as a continuation of the American Independent Party, which supported George C. Wallace in the 1968 Presidential elections. The former California affiliate of the CP (which is also called the American Independent Party), used to be a affiliate of this national party back then until it (and other state affiliates) broke away from the AP in the mid 1970′s over internal matters, and afterward a bitter rivalry existed between the AIP and the AP for a long time. Indeed, while now the AP is nearly defunct and may not have ballot access anywhere anymore except for Florida, perhaps; they have expressed interest in the CCTUC and in merging the parties together, and have greatly contributed to such efforts as well. And despite the visible snobbery of the Constitution Party in it’s attitude towards these other parties, we still welcome them and treat them with courteousness and respect, unlike the CP.

Mr. Peck, unfortunately, needs to be better careful with what he asserts, are facts and genuine history.

According to Wikipedia, the America First Party was founded in 2002 and reached its high water mark that same year with 11 candidates nationwide and has never made ballot access in more than three states.

This time, Mr. Peck is correct. However, it must be noted that the AFP was founded by the former conservative members of the Reform Party, along with many of those that supported the candidacy of Pat Buchanan back in the 2000 Presidential elections. Why exactly did these people simply start their own party when they could have simply joined the CP instead is a good question, and one that can be answered in the most part later on in this response.

The Independent American Party was formed in 1998 and appears to have never had more than three organized state parties and in 2012 only had ballot access in one state.

In contrast, the Constitution Party, founded in 1992, has state party affiliates in nearly every state. Over the years, the party and its Presidential candidate have achieved ballot access in a minimum of 21 states and as many as 41. Constitution Party state affiliates have put as many as 50 candidates on the ballot in a single state.

True, but again, one also needs to examine the circumstances for each party in this contrast; first off, the national party that I am now a member of largely started as a breakaway from the American Party, and even at that time, the AP was much smaller then the CP, so therefore the IAP started as a smaller tent then the National CP, whom started as several state affiliates that merged together, and therefore started with a ‘bigger tent’. And unfortunately, the IAP was domination by extremist and incompetent leadership back then; the kind of leadership that even I butted heads with, and held negative views of the IAP for the longest time because of such people.

Yet, over time, such people either died of natural causes, or were voted out of their positions in the IAP, and things therefore changed for the IAP, gradually, especially in achieving ballot access and have better organized themselves recently after a long period of dormancy, in which I will be helping them from now on, while also still reaching out to the other parties which are in dialogue with the CCTUC.

On the factor of the CP; indeed, since they started out as a bigger tent, and had more competent and practical individuals as their leaders, they did hundreds of times better then the National IAP did… Back then.

It must also be noted that those state affiliates that were well organized and ran as many as 50 candidates- did so only because of the level-headed & experienced leadership of that state party, along with the dedicated members of that particular state, in addition with state election laws which were quite favorable to those particular state affiliates which made it easy for that state party to do, and to grow as well.

Yet the national party itself, played a very little, to almost no role in those factors at all; the truth behind the former strength in the CP was that it was made up of several individual state parties that had already existed for many many years, and were already organized enough to get and maintain ballot access on their own, as well as run many candidates for various offices. However, only a few of these state parties exist in the CP, and the majority of the state affiliates that were founded afterwards have instead fared poorly and have also lost ballot access recently, and even the ones that do considerably well in organization and can stay on the ballot are very weak in comparison to the Nevada and Utah affiliates of the CP.

Therefore, while the CP has seen success on the local levels, and some good showings on the state level… On the national level, the truth is the complete opposite; it is on this level that the CP fares poorly, where both the Libertarian and Green Parties, with their well-funded organizations and capable leaders, easily run circles around the CP and put it to great shame when it comes to the voting results of each presidential election.

And in it’s 20 or more years of existence as a national party; on trying to restore constitutional government and bringing America back to its moral and traditional foundations, it has failed. And with the way it is organized, ran, and funded, it will continue to fail until it collapses and fades away.

I don’t mean to speak disparagingly of other political parties. I recognize what an achievement it is to organize and obtain ballot access in even one state. However, to suggest that the Constitution Party and its supporters should put on the line all that they have labored for and built by yielding it up to a merger with these other parties, some of which may not even be actual parties, is ludicrous.

In comparison to these other state parties which the CCTUC has reached out to, especially the ballot-qualified California AIP, whom has three times as many registered voters in their ranks in their state alone, compared to the entire National CP, where their Nevada affiliate by itself, makes up 90% of the national voter registration for the CP; in reality, it is ludicrous for the National CP itself to reject considering any talks on the subject of merger. Especially when these other parties, including the Independent Green Party of Virginia, and the Constitution Party of Oregon (another ex affiliate of the National CP that left many years ago), also have ballot access in their respective states while the National CP itself, does not.

The real issue is this – that the door to the Constitution Party has always been open to any and all who share its commitment to Biblical presuppositions and strict adherence to the plain text of the U.S. Constitution as interpreted according to the original intent of its framers.

Oh really?

From the words of former National Chairman, Jim Clymer:

“…Religious tests have come up before. For example, several years ago a majority of the leadership of the CP in Illinois (the predecessor to the currently affiliated CP of Illinois) supported the exclusion of Catholics from leadership positions in the party or from membership positions altogether. At the 2004 National Convention of the Constitution Party in Valley Forge, there were platform amendment proposals submitted proposing a religious test for party membership. In both of these instances the CP rejected efforts to exclude certain religions from participating in the party.”

I highly doubt that, Mr. Peck. In fact, the above paragraph is only the tip of the iceberg in the CP’s turbulent history on the subject of religious sectarianism.

Seeing that the Constitution Party was founded well in advance of the other parties that are being proposed for unification, one would be forced to assume that the other parties were formed either because they were not aware of the Constitution Party’s existence at the time, or because they hold sufficiently differing views so as to be incompatible with the Constitution Party’s platform.

Funny, because some of these parties that the CCTUC has reached out to are former affiliates of the CP that have disaffiliated from the National CP (not the other way around) at one point or another, and yet trying to bring them back into the CP is something that the members of the CP cannot tolerate?

As for these other parties, I do believe the latter might be the likeliest explanation, yet not because these other parties expose a radically different or more moderate ideology on the major issues,  but because of the various controversies which have existed previously in the Constitution Party, especially when one former Regional Co-Chair of the CP had this to say:

“…Many have objected to my treatment of Mormons by having referred to them in open discourse as “devil worshiping Mormons.” If you object, take your complaint to a higher tribunal, to He who declares All the gods of the nations are devils and to whom you owe due honour, reverence and worship. Since He says, The things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils, I can do no other.”

-then one does indeed wonder why they didn’t join with the Constitution Party in the first place?

The best statement that I’ve heard with regard to the CCTUC’s desire to unite like-minded, Constitutionally oriented parties, is that of Andrew Zuelke of the Constitution Party of Wisconsin, who commented in that party’s May 1, 2013 email campaign:

“I want to remind my fellow constitutionalists that the CCTUC is not breaking any new ground here. Members of the Constitution Party already answered the ‘clarion call’ to unite back in 1992 when ‘a coalition of independent state parties united to form the US Taxpayer’s Party’ which later became the Constitution Party. This idea isn’t new.”

Indeed this idea isn’t new at all, yet if Mr. Peck thinks that the CP has already answered the Clarion Call, and nothing more needs to be done in the field of politics, and in restoring constitutional government, then he is very incorrect here, especially since their are other constitutionalist parties out there that have ballot-access, are organized, and very capable of splitting the vote as well as manpower and resources, as they did in the last presidential election with the candidacies of Tom Hoefling and Will Christensen, both whom had ballot access in a state where the CP’s presidential candidate, Virgil Goode Jr., was not on the ballot and therefore, both candidates received votes which could have easily gone to Goode instead, if he were on the ballot in those states.

This above, is one of the reasons why there must be a unified party among those that are tired of the two-party system and also want to see our Constitutional Republic reemerge again, and unfortunately the CP has already dropped the ball on being that unified party that all patriots and principled-conservatives could flock to, especially when Mr. Zuelke’s CP state affiliate recently passes a resolution which calls for not just the recriminalization of sodomy, but also the repeal of ‘no fault’ divorce as well, and also, at their recent state convention, reelected a State Chairman that espouses extremist viewpoints and especially had this to say about the 2012 Presidential election on his commentary blog:

“…Here are some other facts:  President Obama is not a Christian.  There is plenty of proof of that, which I am not going to talk about here.  Governor Mitt Romney is not a Christian.  He is part of the Mormon Church.  If you want more information about Mormonism, talk to your pastor…”

Unfortunately, I cannot view the opinions of those members of the Wisconsin affiliate of the CP in high regard, being myself, a Mormon.

…The same appearing to be true of the current effort, the Constitution Party National Committee recently voted to abstain from participation in the CCTUC and instead stay focused on its primary tasks of recruiting members, fielding candidates and welcoming any individuals, groups or other parties who want to join their efforts to that of the Constitution Party.

And with how far in the the red the National CP’s finances are currently, I highly doubt that it can do such for the time being.

I have only become aware of the existence of the Independent American Party within the past year or so. As a member of the Constitution Party National Committee, a state party chairman and the immediate past Western Area Co-Chairman, I am not aware of the Independent American Party ever making contact with or seeking interaction with the Constitution Party. Nevertheless, if they share the same goal as the Constitution Party, then I’ll repeat that “the door is open – come on in and join us.”

Really, then what about this? Mr. Gneiting repeatedly contacted Frank Fluckiger and the others about this, and you didn’t know? However, with the past animosity, and previous events that took place at Baltimore- do you think that the National leaders of the IAP would up and close shop for the sake of the CP? As a national leader of the IAP, I sure as hell am not going back, in which the reasons why, I will elaborate further down…

More recently, I was made privy to an IAP communique which indicated a party building plan that included targeting states to organize in which already have Constitution Party state affiliates. The plan indicated that part of the IAP strategy for obtaining ballot access in those states consisted of courting the support of some existing Constitution Party state leaders.

If these things are true (some of which I’ve seen with my own eyes), then the IAP would appear to be acting in a very subversive manner and putting its own aggrandizement ahead of the cause of restoring Constitutional governance through working together with a pre-existing, Constitutionally-committed, national political party that already has state affiliates and ballot access. If these indictments against the Independent American Party are false, then I urge the leadership of the IAP to open a dialog with the leaders of the Constitution Party in order to clear the air.

Yes they are false, yet with the arrogance and animosity expressed by the leaders of the CP in regards to the National IAP, and to the CCTUC at the Baltimore meeting, and elsewhere, along with how this author has received threats of physical violence on his person, and from recognized leaders of the CP, in addition- then not only is this author jumping ship for the National IAP, but dialogue on the subject of simply giving up and joining the CP, is very much unrealistic at this point.

Originally, in my peaceful dialogue with the National IAP I did try to talk them out of attempting to get on the ballot in states where the CP was already on; for the sake of trying to have them work with the CP, instead of competing with them- which was one of the original goals of the CCTUC. And I nearly succeeded in having the IAP cease it’s ballot access efforts, that is until the events in Baltimore happened, along with the fallout that came afterward- so in reality, I was also helping the CP at the same time then, and things might have gone differently if the events at Baltimore didn’t happen the way they did.

So congratulations Mr. Peck & Company; you guys have screwed up the possibility of the IAP closely cooperating, and eventually having a merger with the CP in due time, as would have the other parties, by their eventual consent and agreement, would have also done, of course.

Yet now, what was done cannot be unchanged, and the road of unifying these parties together as one must now take a different path.

The bottom line when it comes to unification is that the Constitution Party has been seeking to unify God honoring, Constitution upholding patriots since 1992.

Then why, after twenty years, are there no CP’ers in major offices, and along with competing national parties and ex-state affiliates which are on the ballot and run their own presidential candidates? And why is the CCTUC in existence in the first place then?

The door is open – come on in and join us!

I did a long time ago- and you dropped the ball, sir.

Owing to the various events that have occurred within the span of the past two months in the field of American politics, specifically constitutionalist politics, that has caused me to look back upon several decisions that I had made many years ago, and reevaluate them to make several life-altering ones recently, that have been a long time coming, and are significant in which I must now take a different path in order to see my own government restored back to its constitutional foundations, and for my own country to see eventual redemption.

Since 2002, I not only have been active in the political field, but a member of a state party that’s affiliated with the National Constitution Party, which previously was the largest third-party in these United States (in terms of voter registration), and the largest one that favors a return to constitutional government; being government strictly limited and restrained by that guiding document which has been a governing force and beacon to the workings and limitations of American government… Or should be, regardless of what is considered popular and part of the social norm in our present American society.

And it has been this party which has greatly influenced my life to an extent, and has motivated me to stand on my feet and do something about the horrible condition that our government, and especially our country, has devolved into.

Until now.

Yet again, with the brass, naive outlook and drive of youth, which those of the adolescent phase endure and dwell upon, along with the energy and passion of that age; my opinion and outlook wasn’t always accurate or wise, and indeed at times had made me gullible to the many individuals of the National Constitution Party of which I had once considered my friends, and through recurring trial and error, discovered to be wolves in sheep’s clothing.

However, the more involved with the Constitution Party I got, the more my young gullibility learned and improved to easily see the red flags and develop a sixth sense to the perceived dangers and threats to the Constitution Party that I was many times eager, and willing to confront and combat on my own until such a threat was either dealt with, or removed from the CP completely.

After all, with that ferocious zealotry and Irish relentlessness which runs in my own family, I have always been a firm believer that if you get involved with a group, or a cause, or a topic that you care very much about- then such a subject, or ‘subjects’, are something in which you must never be faint or weak-hearted in when it comes to your drive to see such a subject, topic, or group succeed, and also in being unwavering in one’s loyalty to it, especially in defending it against doubt and attacks from both the inside and out.

Yet it is this zealotry, this sheer loyalty which has driven me, on both the conscious and subconscious level- that also functions as a double-edged sword.

And it was this double-edged sword that, while gradually overcoming that brass, overly optimistic outlook from those days of my youth, along with the previous lack of experience and understanding of both politics and of the inner-workings of the CP, that was quickly overcome and learned through my extensive study of it and it’s history, and also the sheer first-hand experiences that I went through and became enlightened on afterward- that those ‘rose-colored glasses’ would soon come off, and those previous perspectives that I had of my own political party, began to dim and afterward, would decimate my own dedication and pierce through the once iron-clad armor of my own loyalty to the CP.

After the eleven years of my own general involvement in politics, one thing I had learned, and learned the hard way, was that in politics itself, while principles and beliefs can stay the same, or at least remain invariant throughout each generation- everything else is susceptible to change, and in fact will change.

So many times before have I seen good friends turn into bad enemies and even once bad enemies into good friends; for in the world of politics, regardless of what side, and what extreme of the spectrum it falls on- there is no clear path, nor consistent direction.

In reality, politics is a maze, and one where we have to backtrack whenever we come to a dead end.

And unfortunately, it is also one where sometimes one may never find his/her way to the exit in their lifetime.

So far, I would say I’m right in the middle of this maze, and after coming to a dead end; being, to continue onward within the CP without giving any thought to the rival parties out there that believe as we do, and yet, regardless of their size and strength, continue to splinter our end of the spectrum in which we upon, to the point of dividing resources and even the vote itself.

So I started a group that would bring these other parties together on this side of the spectrum, and backtracked to what I thought was a clearer path, to the exit.

I was correct and justified in doing so, but I soon discovered, after coming to a ‘T’ in my part of the maze, and taking what I thought was the right way… That I came to another dead end.

As large and as organized as the CP is, or was, the long held belief that my own political party was one that was governed by sincere, dedicated patriots that always put ‘Principle above Politics’, was soon disproved; as the leaders of the CP, whom I once looked up to and respected, were as unscrupulous and equally petty as the typical mainstream American politician, whom are the responsible culprits for our government being the way it currently is, and which parties like the CP were first created to counter and fight against in the first place!

And when I protested such efforts and actions taken against my sincere, humble efforts to bring all patriots and like-minded parties together in friendship and harmony- that the true nature and motivation of these individuals came fully out in sneering arrogance and haughty demeanor, tarnishing my long held views and beliefs on this party that I had belonged to for so long. And when a few other individuals from the fringe side of the CP made several threats to harm my own physical person, in addition- then not only was my long held, iron-clad loyalty demolished, but I was pushed to make a very serious and irreversible decision that would greatly come to affect the long-term aspects of constitutionalist politics.

Many years ago, I had come across, and butted heads with a rival party known as the National Independent American Party , whom shared the same same as the Nevada affiliate (my affiliate), of the CP, and whom previously contained individuals that I found to be of extremist and reprehensible character.

Hence my negative view of this party for many years before, until recently.

This national political party only had ballot access in a few states and indeed lost all of that ballot access before to ineffective leadership and the passing of their national leader, Bruce Bangerter, years ago.

Then again, in politics, things change.

Over the past two years, this political party redid their website, voted in new national leadership, regained ballot access and ran a candidate for U.S. Senate, along with fielding candidates in the presidential race that was on the ballot in one state and had write-in status in several others. While this may not seem at all impressive at first sight; the fact that a long-dormant political party which hadn’t fielded it’s own candidates for office, or even was on the ballot anywhere for nearly ten years, to suddenly became active again and regain those two factors after a ten year hiatus, is indeed a matter that is worthy of praise and a second look.

It was also around that time that when my project for bringing the parties together first took off, I befriended the IAP and opened dialogue with them, along with actively participating in their meetings as well. In contrast to the contentious, sometimes tumultuous national meetings with the CP had; while less sparsely attended, the IAP meetings lacked these features and instead harbored a friendly and productive atmosphere, where resolutions and actions were not hotly debated or torn apart under contention and threats of leaving their own party if one, or several, didn’t get their way; in fact my opening proposition to them about uniting the parties together was rather enthusiastic received in a unanimous voice.

Starting off, my own views and opinions of this party remained negative and pessimistic (as it had been for quite some time before), yet the imperatively of this one goal was enough for me to put aside my animosity and attempt to include their party with the CP, and others, that were open to dialogue on unification; since to accomplish such an effort as this one, which I still am pursuing, requires skilled diplomacy and a lot of patience, regardless.

Yet when their party further included me in their efforts, and warmed up to my own even further, to the point that they began to publicly support the goal of unifying the parties, and in an official manner as well, that’s when my perspective on the IAP started to change.

In contrast, my situation with the CP headed quickly into the opposite direction, which thereupon lead me to that dead end in the maze which we call, ‘politics’.

Granted, I could have remained where I was, and simply continue to pound against the wall until I could at least make a dent. But then again, would that get me closer to the exit? Would that have actually gotten me to the other side of that wall and towards another direction within the maze, in the first place?

Then again this is politics; things change.

So I turned around…

The National IAP may not be perfect in some things, especially in terms of organizational strength, and ballot access, at the moment, yet, being their appointed Affiliations Coordinator, I hope to change that, and to better improve the IAP itself, where it can hopefully become a organized, everlasting beacon to all constitutionalists, principled-conservatives, and like-minded patriots- and finally make that gradual breakthrough into major offices that is vital for such a party like this one to become a changing, and permanent force upon American politics; a force that, despite the twenty years that the CP has been in existence, has repeatedly failed to become, and will never be.

… And I turned my back to this dead end, and started for the other direction of the ‘T’.

While I will continue in my recently adjusted goal of reaching out to, and including the other parties out there which believe as the IAP does, especially to the good and well-intentioned leaders, members, and state affiliates of the CP, which have not been touched by the whims of sectarianism, incompetence, and dogmatic approach, that has already consumed many levels and aspects of the National CP itself, yet which is absent in the IAP itself. Nevertheless, I do this after careful and meticulous mediation, and prayer, and without the Holier-than-thou self-righteous dibble, or even the vain, extremist ranting that some of this political persuasion might use in frustration or anger.

Granted, there have been plenty of other dead ends that I have met in the past before, and only through the wisdom of my mentor, the late William K. Shearer, and several others- have I been able to turn around in time, and not end up back in the same spot that I started in.

Now begins another path that hopefully leads to the exit, or at least closer to it, in this maze that we, again, call politics, that I take, and do so… As a Independent American.

On May 13 it was reported, “The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative’s top executive called a ‘massive and unprecedented intrusion’ into how news organizations gather the news.” An attorney for the AP says the records included all outbound calls which revealed the “the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters” as well as the general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and the House of Representatives press gallery. According to the AP “It was not clear if the records also included incoming calls or the duration of the calls.”

Kelsey D. Atherton with Popular Science reports, “Electronic communications have improved drastically since the legal precedent was set [in 1979], and the amount of revealing data now transferred with a phone call is far greater than just a telephone number. But the law has yet to catch up with technology—which means the Justice Department has access to a lot more than just the numbers dialed by the AP’s journalists.”

Gary Pruitt, the AP’s CEO, said the government sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by a specific investigation, and demanded all copies of the records be destroyed. Pruitt said, “These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP’s newsgathering operations and disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know.”

There is something called “freedom of the press” that is supposedly protected by the 1st Amendment, not to mention the 4th Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. In 2008, U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney ruled that a journalist could not be compelled to answer questions “because his First Amendment right to protect his sources outweighed the government’s need to identify those sources.”

If the DOJ overstepping it’s bounds wasn’t enough to get people to question whether or not government bureaucrats can be trusted to protect fundamental rights, then the news coming out of the IRS may cause people to ask those questions.

It was reported that the IRS had targeted certain groups seeking 501c(4) non-profit status. Chris Wilson from Yahoo News reports, “an inspector general report on the practice found, groups with phrases like ‘tea party,’ ‘patriots’ and ’9/12 project’ were targeted for the ‘Be On the Look Out’ or ‘BOLO’ list, and often ended up waiting two years for notice on their status.” Wilson further reports, judging only by the numbers of organizations that were approved, “progressive organizations did not appear to receive special treatment compared to conservative ones.” But comparing whether or not certain groups with “political sounding names” received preferential treatment from the IRS is not the real issue. The real issue is with the very existence of the IRS. Why should a government agency be allowed to decide whether or not a person or group is “allowed” to spend their money in the manner they choose? To go one step further, why should a government agency get to decide who gets to collect money without paying taxes?

If you support the idea that everyone is equal under the law, then you believe that no person or group has any more right than any other person or group. Which leads to the logical conclusion that if one person or group is tax exempt, then all persons and all groups should be tax exempt. And believe it or not, the IRS could be abolished, and replaced with nothing, if federal spending were to be cut to the spending level of 1992!

The NTU further reports, “Congressmen and economists claim that the “stimulus” programs should have spent even more. In either case, Americans still face a challenging economic — and budgetary — outlook going forward. [Illinois] Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky introduced H.R. 1617 [the Emergency Jobs to Restore the American Dream Act] in mid-April in order to continue funding for certain ARRA initiatives, as well as new programs designed to provide jobs and economic relief.”

Representative Schakowsky is hoping to reduce the number of unemployed individuals by 2.2 million, roughly half, by $227.8 billion in new federal spending over a five-year period. This new spending would go towards building and maintaining schools at a cost of $100 billion; retaining, rehiring, or hiring 300,000 education professionals and support staff at a cost of $3 billion; hiring or rehiring of 40,000 additional law enforcement officers as part of the COPS program at a cost of $10 billion. The bill also aims to provide 750,000 jobs “to help weatherize homes, conduct rural conservation work, and collect recyclable materials” at a cost of $60 billion; spend $6 billion on Head Start programs; $8 billion on retaining and training health care professionals to implement the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; $2.4 billion on firefighters; $800 million on a Student Jobs Corps; and $625 million on the Park Improvement Corps to create an additional 100,000 jobs for the purposes of creating, maintaining, and supporting conservation projects.

The NTU calculates this bill will spend $101,650 for each of the 2.242 million jobs created or saved. The worst part of this bill, as if the price tag weren’t bad enough, is that the bill as written does not include any spending offsets or revenue provisions. Meaning that this bill, if passed, will add over $227 billion to the federal debt over the next five years, based on current projections; and that’s on top of whatever amount will already be added!

On the potential for drug cartels to form on Silk Road:

“Cartels are nearly impossible to maintain without the use of violence, especially in an environment as competitive as Silk Road. There is also nothing morally wrong with them. If a cartel were to form, I would not attempt to break it up unless its members were breaking other rules. If you want an explanation for why cartels are nearly impossible to maintain in a free market environment, please read “Man, Economy and State” chapter 10, part 2, section D.”

Megapuss – A Gun On His Hip and a Rose On His Chest.

That just made me want to pick up the Hammer of Truth and bludgeon some fascists and commies. “Hey bo diddly!” proclaimed victoriously, as we know the security state is one of constant fear! We see your hands shake when you lie. RUN AWAY LITTLE CHILD, I HAVE A ROSE ON MY…

Telling the truth is the best fuck you can give, and for some awesome reason it sounds best as a 50s surf song.

The advertising side would be expected to reevaluate their hardline “We’re not going to negotiate” stance and rethink their strategy. Unfortunately, that hasn’t happened. So I’m not too optimistic on negotiated terms for Do Not Track, but I’m increasingly optimistic that by virtue of the browsers’ efforts, consumers will get the choices they want.

-Robert Morris

I want a 3D printer. I want a really good one. This is in my bucket list:

Eight months ago, Cody Wilson set out to create the world’s first entirely 3D-printable handgun.

Now he has.

Early next week, Wilson, a 25-year-old University of Texas law student and founder of the non-profit group Defense Distributed, plans to release the 3D-printable CAD files for a gun he calls “the Liberator,” pictured in its initial form above. He’s agreed to let me document the process of the gun’s creation, so long as I don’t publish details of its mechanics or its testing until it’s been proven to work reliably and the file has been uploaded to Defense Distributed’s online collection of printable gun blueprints at Defcad.org.

I hope technology can outrun tyranny.

Many people will think such a question is rhetorical and will answer with “never forget” or some other hollow reply aimed at degrading anyone who dares question the Global War on Terror. I ask this question, not only because it’s been 11 ½ years since the attacks on the Twin Towers and Pentagon. I ask because it’s the go-to excuse from the White House. On April 16, Amina Ismail asked White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, “Do you consider the U.S. bombing on civilians in Afghanistan earlier this month that left 11 children and a woman killed a form of terrorism? Why or why not?”

Carney replied, “Well, I would have to know more about the incident and then obviously the Department of Defense would have answers to your questions on this matter. We have more than 60,000 U.S. troops involved in a war in Afghanistan, a war that began when the United States was attacked… and more than 3,000 people were killed in that attack. And it has been the President’s objective once he took office to make clear what our goals are in Afghanistan and that is to disrupt, dismantle and ultimately defeat al Qaeda… we take great care in the prosecution of this war and we are very mindful of what our objectives are.”

The most conservative estimates claim “at least 16,725 Afghan civilians have been killed directly by the war’s violence” since it began in 2001, and those numbers have risen sharply since 2009. Does that sound like the military is taking “great care” and being “very mindful” of the objectives?

The War on Terror is also the excuse given for violating the human rights of the 166 people imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay. Richard A. Serrano of the LA Times reports, “Prison officials said 100 of the 166 detainees left at Guantanamo were engaged in some form in the hunger strike, with two dozen being force-fed. Officials have also acknowledged that much of the detainees’ angst is over their lost hope of the prison ever closing.” It is not known how many of the 100 men taking part in the hunger-strike are among the 86 prisoners who have been designated for release, nor is it known whether or not any of the men who are not allowed to die have been designated for release. I say, “not allowed to die” because the American military is force feeding these men. Can you imagine feeling so hopeless that you want to die, but have no means of killing yourself other than starvation, and then being force-fed to prevent you from dying?

To answer my original question: How long will the attacks on September 11, 2001 be used as an excuse for murder and the repression of rights? If history is any indication, the federal government will use it as an excuse for as long as they can get away with it.