Category Archives: self

In February of 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) into law. The National Taxpayers Union (NTU) reports, “This large ‘stimulus’ package was the President’s first major legislative victory, and was designed to minimize the negative impact of the Great Recession through a combination of tax credits and new spending initiatives.” Most of the “stimulus” funds came in the form of increased federal spending, with State and local governments receiving $144 billion in transfer payments to help balance their budgets and keep employees on the payroll. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) originally estimated ARRA’s cost at $787 billion, that was later revised to $831 billion. see more…

Some simple data that the Repubs and the Dems would really rather you were not aware of:

-Robert Morris

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.

Sincerely,

Cody Quirk,
National Chairman,
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.”

Fight for the Future reports that CISPA will allow the government to spy on you without a warrant, makes it so you can’t even find out about it after the fact, makes it so companies can’t be sued when they do illegal things with your data, allows corporations to cyber-attack each other and individuals outside of the law, and makes every privacy policy on the web a moot point, and violates the 4th amendment.

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.

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.

For the first time in 4 years, the U.S. Senate has passed a budget, as opposed to a continuing appropriations resolution which authorizes government agencies to fund their agencies at the current level until either the resolution expires, or an appropriations bill is passed. Reuters reports, “The budget plan passed 50-49 at about 5 a.m. [on March 23] after a marathon voting session in the Democratic-controlled chamber. Four Democratic senators facing tough re-election campaigns in 2014 joined all the Senate Republicans in opposing the measure, which seeks to raise nearly $1 trillion in new tax revenues…”

The budget that passed through the Senate also includes a proposal, the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act, that would give States the ability to require businesses to collect sales tax on products imported into the State. This proposal, if it actually becomes part of the law, would obliterate the physical presence standard which has been upheld by the Supreme Court “to protect businesses and their customers from predatory tax administrators.”

The Senate version of the budget includes a dozen other amendments, many of which are not part of the budget passed by the House of Representatives. Among the more interesting proposal that were adopted, are a pair of amendments from the Senators from Oklahoma, James Inhofe & Tom Coburn. The purpose of the Inhofe amendment is “to uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty” while the purpose of the Coburn amendment is unknown, even after it was adopted by a vote of 62-37.

The Senate also rejected 33 amendments via roll-call vote, including two amendments from Sen. David Vitter “to end the mobile phone welfare program” and “to ensure election integrity by requiring a valid government-issued photographic ID for voting in federal elections.” A third amendment proposal from Sen. Vitter was passed and would “end ‘Too Big To Fail’ subsidies or funding advantage for Wall Street mega-banks (over $500 billion in total assets).”

Reuters reports the White House welcomed the Senate move, with White House spokesman Jay Carney stating, “Today, the Senate passed a budget plan that will create jobs and cut the deficit in a balanced way. Now it is time for our leaders to come together to find common ground. The president has put a plan on the table that reflects compromise, and he will continue to work with both sides to see if there is an opportunity to reach a solution to our budget challenges.”

Not only is the budget a challenge, finding compromise between the two House & Senate budget will be a challenge, as well. The Senate budget would “reduce deficits by $1.85 trillion over 10 years through an equal mix of tax increases and spending cuts.” While the House budget “seeks $4.6 trillion in savings over the same period without raising new taxes.”

Whether a compromise can be reached is yet to be seen, and once again there is a threat of “government shut down” with the Treasury expected to exhaust its borrowing capacity around late July or early August. I don’t really expect a budget to be passed, and can safely predict that the House and Senate will pass a continuing resolution at the last minute to continue funding the wars, theft and oppression committed by the federal government.

Many civil rights advocates have long-known that the federal government had a secret spy program in place. Matt Sledge from HuffingtonPost reports, “Journalists and human rights advocates worried they are being swept up in an electronic dragnet cannot challenge the U.S. government’s secretive warrantless wiretapping program.” On March 12, the US Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling in the case of Clapper v. Amnesty International USA that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his opinion, the plaintiffs’ argument that they have the standing to challenge the program was based on a “highly speculative fear.” He also wrote they “have no actual knowledge of the Government’s … targeting practices,” and “can only speculate as to how the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence will exercise their discretion in determining which communications to target.”

Jim Babka & Perry Willis from DownsizeDC explain that the Court made it’s decision “[b]ecause there is no evidence that the federal ‘government’ has directed such spying at the plaintiffs.” However, “The State asked for the power to do this kind of spying and to be allowed to keep it secret, therefore… we can assume that The State is doing this kind of spying, but… because the spying is a secret, the Court feels the plaintiffs lack specific cause or evidence for complaint.”

This is just one more case in which the government has given itself immunity from accountability. Babka & Willis conclude, “The State has just taken another step to establish its own illegitimacy. The Court here adds to the evidence that new forms of government should be erected. We continue to prefer reform, but we will add this latest abuse and usurpation to a case for the institution of new government.”

I don’t necessarily agree that there should be a new government instituted, at least not at the federal level. I would much prefer the federal government to simply vanish; then the people of each of the 50 States, 4 organized territories, 2 inhabited unorganized territories, and the Native Americans living in the 310 reservations would be able to decide for themselves what form of government they wish to have. I would further like to see jurisdictions that are no longer tied to geography, whereby each individual or family would be able to grant or withdraw consent from a particular “government” while not affecting the governmental choice of their neighbors. Such systems have existed in the past. In Medina during the time of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad, “Pagans, Jews, and Muslims shared the same roads, traded in the same markets, and drank from the same wells. They were part of different social spheres, sharing no obligations to each other except those they contracted. Legal systems were not separated by territorial boundaries, as States are today. They existed right on top of one another, shifting according to consent, not jurisdiction.” Similar overlapping governments existed in Gaelic areas during the middle ages, and to a lesser extent in the United States before the New Deal when most people received social services from fraternal organizations or mutual aid societies. I believe these systems of overlapping governments could flourish in the near future due primarily to the advances in technology over the last 500 years.

by Cody Quirk

I’ve recently heard that the National IAP is going to attempt to get on the ballot in Utah, despite the fact that the CP is already on the ballot in that state.

However, despite the personal help and involvement I have given to the National IAP on bipartisan matters, on this I cannot contribute, being that I am a member of the Constitution Party, and the leader of the Clarion Call To Unite Committee, for it would both create a conflict of interest for me and also be unfair of me to put one party’s interests above another party’s interests.

Yet I still respect and understand why the National IAP is doing this; while they are true constitutionalist patriots and have endorsed and contributed to the efforts of the CCTUC, as well as reached out to CP’ers in cooperation and friendship, they still need to represent and advance their interests for the time being, until the CCTUC finally calls all the parties together for a official sit-down meeting and work out an actual formula for unification.

But that said, my point I am making in this statement is this; I consider it sad and a unfortunate waste of resources when one constitutionalist party tries on get on the ballot while another constitutionalist party is already on the ballot in the same state; an example like this shows why we need to unite and to stop using money, time, and resources on something like this, when, in a unified national constitutionalist party, such money, time, and resources could instead go to building up and organizing that unified national party.

However, please do not take this criticism as being leveled against the National IAP; for they are good-intentioned patriots that will eventually play a very important part in organizing a unified party when we reach that point in due time.
This criticism is instead leveled at the years, even decades, of division that has existed among the constitutionalist and principled-conservative parties which is the main obstacle and reason why the CP, and especially the other parties have yet to elect candidates to major offices on a widespread scale- because of the splintering of resources and talents, which only make such efforts for the CP, the National IAP, and other parties vain and petty when attempting the same thing on their own, without any help or cooperation from the rival parties…

-to read the entire article, click here.