Some simple data that the Repubs and the Dems would really rather you were not aware of:
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.
Allow me to ask a question: “How long will the attacks on September 11, 2001 be used as an excuse for murder and the repression of rights?”
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.
Looks like the WaPo thinks that there ought to be an American Pirate Party. Given the constitution party fusion is rapidly unfusing, and the LP is somehow attempting to do a top-down crowdsourcing on farcebook, it’s looking more and more like the “Net Libertarians” are becoming politically homeless. Perhaps it IS time for an American Pirate Party, as the B&M parties just aren’t cutting it for the net generation anymore…
In the weeks since the Boston bombings, there has been increased talk about the need for immigration reform. Some are advocating for a suspension of student visas, others are asking the feds to prevent anyone from what is deemed a “Muslim country” from being able to immigrate to the United States.
Bob Beckel, the “resident liberal” at Fox News said, “I think we really have to consider given the fact that so many people hate us that we’re going to have to cut off Muslim students from coming to this country for some period of time so that we can at least absorb what we’ve got, look at what we’ve got and decide whether some of the people here should be going — be sent back home or sent back to prison.” see more…
Forwarded from the Clarion Call To Unite Committee’s website.
While the Clarion Call To Unite Committee previously issued a brief statement on the unfortunate matter pertaining to the results of the Constitution Party National Committee meeting in Baltimore, Maryland yesterday; however, there are also, at this current moment, increasing reports that the supposed vote taken during the early Saturday morning portion of their meeting may have been intentionally manipulated, or even rigged, and that the validity of this vote the CP took on a resolution that addressed our organization, and our efforts- at the moment, is open to question.
However, while if true and accurate, in which these reports and rumors about the conduct and actions taken at the CP National Committee meeting in Baltimore are indeed disturbing to us, and certainly do complicate our dialogue and outreach efforts with the National Constitution Party; nevertheless, the CCTUC believes that such matters within the Constitution Party are for the leaders and members of the CP alone to deal with, and resolve, and without outside interference.
Therefore, regardless of the nature of such internal situations in the organization of the CP, the CCTUC pledges neutrality and complete non-interference in this increasingly dire situation within the Constitution Party, and respects those members of the CCTUC that are also members, or leaders, of the CP itself, to take any course of action on their party’s business as they so please, as long as they do not involve our organization in such a situation.
We are very sorry about these unexpected events, and do hope and pray that the Constitution Party can resolve any internal matters that could potentially be self-destructive for their party, and also to commence further in friendship and dialogue with us, as we seek to end the unfortunate strive and division that continues to plague fellow patriots, and to bring about the restoration of our Constitutional Republic.
Clarion Call To Unite Committee
by Cody Quirk
The CCTUC meeting today, for the 13th of April was largely, a success.
We had Kelly Gneiting and Jared Beck of the National Independent American Party, Janine Hansen of the Constitution Party, Markham Robinson of the California American Independent Party, Anthony Tolda of the Sovereignty Party, Tom Hoefling of America’s Party, Douglas Joy of the American Party, along with CCTUC Vice-Chair Joshua Fauver and CCTUC Spokesperson and 2016 presidential candidate, Robby Wells…
And me, the CCTUC National Chairman, of course.
While the meeting got off to a rough start due to a few technical glitches, nevertheless, Tom Hoefling gave the opening prayer, and thereafter we talked and discussed at length the proposed ‘Clarion Call To Unite Resolution’, which the CCTUC intends to see become adopted by the parties involved in this great effort.
Unfortunately, because of the detailed length of the resolution itself, and of the brief time that some of the leaders & representatives of each party had in participating in today’s meeting, we unanimously decided to edit certain portions of the resolution for today’s meeting, which we did- thanks to the contributing efforts of both Mr. Robinson and Mrs. Hansen -and to hold another meeting on the 11th of next month to conclude and finish editing the rest of the resolution, and adopting it afterwards.
However, when this resolution is completely edited and set on stone after the next meeting on the 11th, it will then be immediately made public, and gradually adopted by these parties that we have reached out to, and have answered the Clarion Call To Unite, God willing…
To read the whole report, click here.
Note: The Clarion Call To Unite Committee is a group made up of like-minded constitutionalists from various minor parties and political independents that likewise favor the restoration of our Constitutional Republic.
The goal of this group, however, is to bring all Constitutionalist and Principled-Conservative political parties together in harmony and work towards the formation, and eventual creation, of a permanent and united national party that will be successful in its efforts to restore our original Constitutional Republic.
On April 18, while the media was following the story of the Boston Bombing, the U.S. House of Representatives passed CISPA, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act. This is actually the second time that CISPA has passed the House.
Kurt Opsahl, Senior Staff Attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) said, “CISPA is a poorly drafted bill that would provide a gaping exception to bedrock privacy law.” Rainey Reitman, EFF Activism Director said, “This bill undermines the privacy of millions of Internet users. Hundreds of thousands of Internet users opposed this bill, joining the White House and Internet security experts in voicing concerns about the civil liberties ramifications of CISPA. We’re committed to taking this fight to the Senate and fighting to ensure no law which would be so detrimental to online privacy is passed on our watch.”
The EFF writes, “CISPA’s definition of ‘cyber threat information’ includes information directly pertaining to a threat to ‘confidentiality.’ But what does that mean? The definition encompasses measures designed for preserving ‘authorized restrictions on access,’ including means for protecting ‘proprietary information;’ [which] is not defined, and could be read to include copyrighted information. For example, one type of restriction on access that is designed to protect proprietary information is digital rights management (DRM).” The bill itself states, “Cyber threat information shared in accordance with paragraph (1)… shall be exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the `Freedom of Information Act’).”
The actual policies and procedures authorized by the bill are not known, because they will not be written until after the bill becomes law, assuming it passes the Senate and is not vetoed by President Obama. On the bright side, this bill has been killed once before; and according to a White House Statement of Administration Policy, President Obama’s senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill unless it is amended to include better privacy and civil liberties protections and transparent oversight .
Even with the threat of a veto, the fight against CISPA is not over, we must once again convince the Senate to kill this bill!
The recent universal background check defeat is not a symptom of a system that has gone awry. In fact, it is the system working EXACTLY as the founders intended. That’s right, the founders INTENDED that it be practically impossible for the majority’s passion of the moment to carry us into taking away essential liberties. In fact, the very term “tyranny of the majority” was coined by none other than John Adams, during the Constitutional Convention (de Toqueville later cribbed it, though he properly attributed it. The attribution never gets quoted though) and amplified on in the Federalist Papers. We can debate whether or not the system’s historically worked, but this one time, the system did exactly what we asked it to do; protect our essential liberties from ourselves. We keep hearing about this mythical 90% majority that wants to barter away our essential freedom (90% is pretty much the definition of an echo chamber, you typically can’t get 90% of the people to agree that the sky is blue), yet it wouldn’t matter how much of a majority wants to remove a freedom, so long as there’s one person that says “NO, you won’t have my freedom today” (a brave heart, if you will) that’s enough for the founders, and should be enough for any Constitutionally-elected official. Unfortunately, it seems that it isn’t, as literally within hours of this defeat, certain gun control advocates that shall remain nameless carped about how the system was broken, some of which should have known better. It is a sad state of affairs when an alleged Constitutional scholar can’t figure out that “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” doesn’t mean “well, we can infringe it with a background check, or a registration form, those aren’t REALLY infringements, amirite?”. The aftermath of this defeat of gun control also provided another “interesting” effect: there were numerous items on social media “doxing” the senators that voted against invoking cloture, on Facebook there’s a photomosaic of all the Senators voting against it conmingled with a photomosaic of the Newtown victims; on Twitter, they published the Senators’ Twitter handles . While these are pathetic attempts at “Doxing” (public airing of personal information, typically on one’s enemies, oftentimes spelled “d0x”), it provides a chilling reminder that the people that want you to provide further information to buy a gun via background checking or registration are the LAST people that can be trusted with that information. If they are willing to air Senators’ personal information just to make a political point, just imagine what happens when they want further concessions and they have access to YOUR information (Don’t laugh, it’s happened, a New York paper published the names and addresses of all registered gun owners in their area during the ramp up to this debate). In sum, the Constitution won, but it won’t be the last fight by a long shot.
It is once again “tax time,” that time of year when the IRS claims tax forms are due. There are some people who say that based on the wording of the IRS code the average worker is not required to file a tax return. Some of those people have even gone to jail for failure to file. Others like to point to statistics similar to the infamous 47% figure that gained notoriety during the 2012 Presidential election, which is the approximate percentage of people who do not pay federal income taxes. Most of the people who mention that statistic, do so in an effort to shame those who don’t pay any federal income tax. Every time I hear a statistics like this, I’m reminded of the Whitey Harrell trial. Mr. Harrell was charged with not filing an Illinois State tax return and was acquitted by the jury. Marcella Brooks, the juror that was vocal in getting the acquittal, recounts in America: Freedom to Fascism that the other members of the jury said “but he’ll get away with it.” Mr. Harrell was acquitted because the IRS couldn’t show the law that proved he was required to file a federal income tax. Millions of Americans are like the members of that jury – they’re not really upset that others aren’t paying; they’re upset that they are!
I’m not really concerned with whether or not there is a law, statute, regulation, or ordinance in place that says anyone must file a tax return. I’m not concerned, because there are many laws, statutes, regulations, and ordinances in place around the world that attempt to control people, by forcing them to do or not do certain things. In the past, there were laws that said one human could own another human against his will, that if a slave escaped he would be returned to “his master,” and that it was illegal to assist a run-away slave. Did those laws make involuntary servitude moral? No, nor did the laws that allowed the Germans to incarcerate and murder anyone of Jewish descent, make those acts any less heinous. Just because something is mandated under law does not make it right any more than a law prohibiting something makes it wrong.
The real unanswered question regarding taxes is not “what is someone’s fair share?” But rather: Does anyone else own the fruits of your labor?
Is war with North Korea inevitable? Some people are hinting that it can’t be avoided. CNN asked retired General James Marks to explain the military strategies likely to be used by North Korea and the United States in a conflict. Fox News has reported on the “Foal Eagle” exercises conducted by the American military in South Korea. ABC reported, “It appears North Korea is on the march toward war… [On April 3, North Korea] blocked entrance to an industrial park shared with South Korea, an industrial park that generates about $2 billion worth of revenue every year for North and South Korea.” On the same day, the North Korean government warned nuclear war could begin “today or tomorrow.” These threats by North Korea even have some in China scared.
South Korean Defense Minister Kim Kwan-Jin has confirmed that North Korea has moved a missile with “considerable range” to the east coast. Though Kim explains the missile appears to be a mid-range variety, and is likely meant for a test firing or a drill, not an actual war.
Jason Ditz from Antiwar.com reports, “North Korea doesn’t even have missiles capable of hitting the US coast, and its best functional missiles would make any US territory, even Guam, a long-shot.”
The real question is not: will Kim Jong-un attack South Korea or attempt to attack the United States of America? The real questions is: why is the defense of South Korea the responsibility of the United States military? Pat Buchanan answers the question by saying if the American military weren’t in South Korea, and if the American government weren’t part of an entangling alignment with the South Korean government, “we would not be in the middle of this crisis now… U.S. policy, seemingly frozen in the 1950s, is in need of review. We cannot indefinitely be responsible for the defense of South Korea.”
It is also important to remember that George W. Bush wanted to go to war with North Korea in 2002 saying that North Korea was part of the “axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.”
Looking at the last ten years, and the number of deaths caused by the militaries of North Korea and the United States of America, which nation has been more of a threat to the peace of the world?
The U.S. Supreme Court has received a lot of coverage regarding the recent hearing related to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), California’s Prop 8 and the definition of marriage. With much less fanfare the Court has issued several important decisions within the past couple of weeks.
There were three “big” rulings made by the court within the last two weeks. In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court ruled the federal government can be sued when a law enforcement officer intentionally injures or harms someone. In another ruling, the Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that police cannot bring drug-sniffing police dogs onto a suspect’s property to look for evidence without first getting a warrant for a search. Justice Antonin Scalia said a person has the Fourth Amendment right to be free from the government’s gaze inside their home and in the area surrounding it, which is called the curtilage. Opponents of the decision claim, this ruling may limit how investigators use dogs’ sensitive noses to search out drugs, explosives and other items hidden from human sight, sound and smell.
The other major decision of the Court involved the “first sale doctrine” which states that a copyright holder only has the authority to control the first sale of an item. For example, if you purchase a book at a store, that is the first sale, any transaction you make with the book after that purchase can not be controlled by the copyright holder.
Before the Court issued their ruling, some people were saying that Kirtsaeng v John Wiley & Sons could set a precedent to shut-down yard sales. That claim was not based on the facts of the case. John Wiley & Sons had sued Supap Kirtsaeng because Kirtsaeng had purchased cheaper text books overseas and was selling them on his college campus. Wiley claimed this, and not the original purchase overseas, was the “first sale.”
The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling that Kirtsaeng had not violated any law, and reversed a lower court order that Kirtsaeng pay John Wiley & Sons statutory damages of $600,000. The majority opinion written by Justice Breyer reads, in part, “we ask whether the ‘first sale’ doctrine applies to protect a buyer or other lawful owner of a copy (of a copyrighted work) lawfully manufactured abroad. Can that buyer bring that copy into the United States (and sell it or give it away) without obtaining permission to do so from the copyright owner? Can, for example, someone who purchases, say at a used bookstore, a book printed abroad subsequently resell it without the copyright owner’s permission?
In our view, the answers to these questions are, yes. We hold that the ‘first sale’ doctrine applies to copies of a copyrighted work lawfully made abroad.”
What does this mean? It means the next time you go on vacation to a foreign country and purchase something, you can then sale it at a yard sale, or on eBay without worrying whether you have “permission” to do so. It also means that libraries and second-hand stores will not be burdened with requirements to prove the items on their shelves were not purchased in a foreign market before entering the United States.