Author Archives: Darryl W. Perry

Recently, there has been a victory and a defeat regarding the indefinite detention provision of the Fiscal Year (FY)2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges meets with and writes stories about terrorists and believes the indefinite detention provision of NDAA could allow him to be detained. Hedges filed a lawsuit against President Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta claiming the provision, as applied, violates the 1st and 5th Amendments. The Judge asked the federal attorneys a crucial question, “are you telling me that no US citizen can be detained under 1021 (of the NDAA)?” A specific denial would have ended Hedges’ case, the Federal attorneys failed to answer directly.

DownsizeDC – an advocacy group seeking to “to foster human progress by reducing State coercion” – filed the only amicus brief in the case and reports, “The Judge agreed with two of our main arguments. We said the new law is…

• Illegally vague. The Judge said there has to be a precise definition of who is subject to the law, and this law fails.
• Unfair, because it subjects people to detention even when they had no intent to cause harm or knowledge that they were risking such detention.”

U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest not only gave Hedges standing to challenge the law, she also issued an injunction to halt the legalized kidnappings!

The day after Judge Forrest issued her decision, Representatives Justin Amash (R–MI) and Adam Smith (D–WA) proposed an amendment to the FY2013 NDAA, that would strike section 1022 of the FY2012 NDAA and amend Section 1021 of the same Act to eliminate indefinite military detention for anyone detained in the jurisdiction of the United States of America.

The New York Times reports, “the left-right coalition fizzled in the face of charges that the two lawmakers were coddling terrorists.”

Even after the indefinite detention provision was ruled to be illegal, the Congress failed to repeal the section of law. The Chicago Police Department took their defiance of the Court one step farther. TruthOut Assistant Editor Yana Kunichoff reports, “A pre-emptive raid by the Chicago Police Department (CPD) on the home of two Occupy Chicago activists may have happened without a search warrant, said the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), and led to the disappearance of nine activists into police custody without charge for almost 24 hours.”

Zoe Sigman, an Occupy Chicago activist whose home was raided, said, “I’d like to stress that we have done nothing wrong. We have been planning to protest NATO and there is nothing illegal about expressing our feelings about a war machine. Now we’re being treated as mere criminals.” The CPD has released claims that the raid recovered Molotov cocktails, though activists said that the equipment is merely for home brewing of beer.

One protester said, “it’s important to continue protesting, because this tactic was obviously an attempt to intimidate.” I urge you to continue speaking out against tyranny, and I intend to do the same.

President Obama and presumed GOP Presidential nominee Mitt Romney have both made public statements about marriage recently. Obama claims that his views have evolved over the years and told ABC News, “At a certain point, I’ve just concluded, that for me, personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.” Obama explained he was stating his personal opinion and supports the right of the states to make their own decisions. Romney reiterated his stance that marriage is between one man and one woman. As Governor of Massachusetts, Romney said, “I agree with 3,000 years of recorded history. Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman.”

Romney’s position may be consistent, however it is not historically accurate. Until recently, consensual polygamy was a fairly common and accepted practice, and is still common in some parts of the world. Which meant that marriage could be a man and multiple women, a woman and multiple men or multiple men and multiple women. Additionally, Romney’s position – and to a certain extent Obama’s position – implies that governments have been involved in marriage for nearly 3,000 years. This is not true. Daniel Waechter of PrivatizeMarriage.org writes, “marriage licenses have only existed on any significant scale since 1929. No one in the US before that was required to have a marriage license in order to practice their fundamental right to marry.”

Historically marriage has been handled by churches, not government. Jesse Kline of the National Post writes, “the central question… is whether the state should be dictating the domestic arrangements of consenting adults.”

Getting government out of the business of issuing – and in most case “requiring”– a marriage license will be a challenge because government doesn’t like giving up power it has, nor does government like losing revenue sources once obtained. Providing marriage licenses is big business for the state. On average, 2.3 million couples are married per year in the United States, with the average marriage license costing $33.74; that provides a steady stream of income (roughly $77.6 million) for those who want control over your life.

People have become too accepting of government licensing and regulation. If you don’t want government regulating who you can share Thanksgiving dinner with, if/where you attend church or who you can date; why then are you willing to accept regulations on your committed relationships?

Over the past several days, two political parties have been holding their national conventions. One party holds all conventions online, with online voting and no overhead (other than cost of getting online) for party members who wish to participate. The other party regularly holds conventions in upscale hotels and has recently adopted a mandatory fee for any party member who wishes to be a delegate.

The first party, which holds conventions online, is able to hold multiple votes at the same time and party members elected NOTA to two positions on the National Committee, which under party bylaws means the positions will remain unfilled. After an objection to fill the “vacancy” created by electing NOTA, the Chair ruled the motion out of order and the the party founder stated, “if the members choose ‘None of the Above’ to fill an office, the office goes unfilled… it’s the members saying that there’s nobody they want in that office.” During the brief dispute, Robert’s Rules of Order were never quoted and there was no need for a parliamentarian.

The second party, which excludes party members who can’t afford to attend the convention, can only accommodate one vote at a time. Disputes can cause the process to continue for hours on end, and that happened this weekend. Reason.com reports that it began Saturday afternoon when one delegate pushed for someone to speak on behalf of NOTA for Chair. The only two candidates were the current Chair & current Vice-Chair, plus NOTA. The current Chair was eliminated on the first ballot, in the second round, NOTA beat the Vice-Chair. Immediately after the vote was announced one delegate alleged vote tampering and a new round of balloting took place. The delegates voted to ignore the results of both the second ballot and the re-vote. The events carried over into Sunday and more candidates were added to the race. During this disputed election, Robert’s Rules of Order were quoted many times and there was a need for a parliamentarian. Delegates to the convention then had to hurry to elect a Vice-Chair, Secretary, Treasurer & At-Large Representatives to the National Committee.

One of these parties has only been around for 6 years, the other for 40.

If you guessed that the party that had a dysfunctional Chair election was the newer party, you would be incorrect. The party with the dysfunctional Chair election is the Libertarian Party, and the party that elected NOTA to two positions on the National Committee is the younger, Boston Tea Party (not to be confused with the Boston affiliate of the “Taxed Enough Already” groups).

There are other differences between the two parties. For example, the LP will be running hundreds of candidates with ballot access in almost every State, while the BTP will likely only run Presidential ticket with ballot access in a handful of States. The LP platform is modified every two years, the BTP platform can never be changed and forever reads, “The Boston Tea Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose.”

The BTP continues to experience growing pains, however the LP is proving that age does not always equal wisdom.

In March, Kevin Brady (R-TX) introduced H.R.4180 (Sound Dollar Act) and Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced a companion bill (S.2247 Federal Reserve Modernization Act) in the Senate. These two bills are actually seven pieces of legislation, put into a single bill.

The first part of this bill is the “Single Mandate For Price Stability Act” which states the “Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall… define the term `long-term price stability’… and… establish metrics that the Board and the Committee will use to evaluate whether long-term price stability is being achieved.” When establishing these metrics, the “Board and Committee shall… take into consideration price indices of goods and services.” The Federal Reserve Board will also issue reports to Congress with “a determination of whether the goal of long-term price stability is being met and, if such goal is not being met, an explanation of why the goal is not being met and the steps that the Board and the Federal Open Market Committee will take to ensure that the goal is met in the future.”

The “Financial Stability And Moral Hazard Mitigation Act” specifies that “the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall clearly articulate the Board’s lender-of-last-resort policy.” The “Diversifying The Federal Open Market Committee To Reflect A 21st Century Economy Act” changes how members are elected to the Federal Open Market Committee. The act species that “1 representative from each of the Federal Reserve banks… shall be elected by the board of directors of the Federal Reserve bank that they are to represent,” whereas the committee currently has five members, each member representing between 1 and 3 regional banks.

Title 4 of this bill, “Demystification Of Monetary Policy Decisions Act,” states that the monetary policy committee “shall release meeting transcripts to the public not later than the end of the 3-year period following each meeting.” Title 5, “Exchange Rate Responsibility Act” changes the name of the “Exchange Stabilization Fund” to “Special Drawing Rights Fund” and directs the Secretary of the Treasury to “liquidate all property in the Special Drawing Rights Fund… and use all such amounts to reduce the public debt.”

Title 6, the “Credit Allocation Neutrality Act” specifies that the Federal Open Market Committee “may authorize any Federal reserve bank… to buy and sell… bills, notes, revenue bonds, and warrants” that mature within 6 months “in anticipation of the receipt of assured revenues” by any government or government agency.

Title 7 the “Bureau Of Consumer Financial Protection Funding Act” would give Congress limited oversight of Fed spending, if such spending were deemed unrelated to “the safety, soundness, and smooth functioning of the Nation’s banking and payments systems.” Given that other parts of this bill increase the Fed’s powers, I doubt Congress would claim any activity by the Fed to be unrelated to the safety, soundness, or smooth functioning of the banking industry.

There is nothing in this bill that would prevent the Federal Reserve from continuing to inflate the currency. Nothing to prevent future cycles of “boom and bust.” The “Sound Dollar Act” is another misnamed piece of legislation designed to trick the American people into supporting bad legislation. Instead of passing this bill, the Congress should pass the Free Competition in Currency Act which repeals the legal tender law, repeals the government monopoly over the creation of coins for use as currency and prohibits federal and state taxes on precious metal coins and bullion.

For the last few weeks most of the focus on the Supreme Court has been surrounding the case of Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services. This is the case challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly called “Obamacare.”

The act was signed by President Obama on March 23, 2010. Several States have passed various forms of legislation in an attempt to nullify the law. The State of Florida filed a lawsuit. On January 31, 2011 U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled that Congress violated the Constitution by requiring Americans to buy insurance as part of the health overhaul passed last year, and said the entire law “must be declared void.” On August 12, 2011, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Vinson’s decision in part; the divided three judge panel agreed that the mandate was unconstitutional, but held that it could be severed, allowing the rest of the PPACA to remain. The DHHS appealed to the Supreme Court which will answer the following questions: see more…

By now, most people have probably heard about George Clooney’s arrest on Friday, March 16, outside the Sudanese Embassy in Washington, DC. In addition to Clooney, several others were arrested, including his father, several members of Congress (Al Green, Jim McGovern, Jim Moran and John Olver), Martin Luther King III & the president of the NAACP. These men were joined in protest by a reported crowd of roughly 100 people. The Washington Post reports, “[t]he group was protesting the Sudanese hunger crisis, accusing President Omar al-Bashir of blocking food and humanitarian assistance from reaching hundreds of thousands of Sudanese.”

Before being arrested Clooney said humanitarian aid needs to be allowed into Sudan and the government in Khartoum needs to stop randomly killing innocent men, women and children. Clooney even had a comment for the Sudanese President, “stop raping them, and stop starving them. That’s all we ask.”

Earlier in the week Clooney met with President Obama and testified before the US Senate regarding War Crimes committed by Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. It is unknown whether Clooney also condemns the possible War Crimes that have been committed by the American military.

As a libertarian, I do not believe it is acceptable for anyone to commit such acts. Sadly, my view is not held by all. Many people sat quietly as George W. Bush used the American military to invade two countries without declarations of war and many more sit quietly as, Nobel Peace Prize winner, Barack Obama uses the military to carry out unmanned drone attacks on civilians who have been listed for execution without trial. These acts by both Bush & Obama are as much violations of the laws of war as the acts by al-Bashir. Everyone who commits war crimes should be held accountable for their actions, it should not matter if the person committing war crimes is one of “us” or “them.”

I’ve previously reported on the vanishing right to peaceably assemble, now two more rights supposedly guaranteed by the First Amendment are on the verge of being killed. On March 1 HR 347 was submitted to the White House for President Obama’s signature. The bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent and had only 3 “nays” in the House (42 Representatives did not vote). Justin Amash (one of the three to vote against the bill) posted on his facebook page; “Current law makes it illegal to enter or remain in an area where certain government officials (more particularly, those with Secret Service protection) will be visiting temporarily if and only if the person knows it’s illegal to enter the restricted area but does so anyway. [H.R. 347] expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it’s illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it’s illegal.” see more…

Just last month millions of Americans rallied to defeat SOPA and PIPA. However, something worse has crept in the back-door and may not be able to be repealed. In October 2011, President Obama signed an international agreement called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement or ACTA.

A letter from Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison says, “The Obama Administration negotiated the ACTA as an executive agreement. Therefore, the agreement does not require congressional approval, unless the agreement contains statutory changes to current U.S. law. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) claims that ACTA is consistent with U.S. law and enacting legislation from Congress is unnecessary.” see more…

As chair of a minor political party, I occasionally get emails from people with inquiries about the party. I normally respond to these messages privately, however I recently received two emails with inquiries that were really just anti-libertarian talking points. The messages are posted below as I received them:

“just why do you want to shut down the fed? how about removing troops? i’ll be a part of the unemployed if you succeed, that would look great for a presidential campaign, wouldn’t it? laws put in place that ‘intrude on privacy’ are put there to prevent another 9/11 from happening, want one of those on your records?”

“you and your fellow partymen are truly insane. you need a military to protect the country from events like 9/11, remember that???? you have two chioces (sic), you can stand behind our troops or you can feel free to stand in front of them.”

I will do my best to respond to these messages and the questions asked. see more…

From the time the law known as Obamacare was introduced in 2009, there has been some debate over the federal mandate that individuals must own a health insurance policy that has federal approval. More recently the debate has centered around a provision mandating employers not only provide health insurance for their employees, but that employers must provide health insurance that covers contraception and abortifacient coverage. However, like most other debates in this country, only two sides are being discussed.

Darian Worden at the Center for a Stateless Society asks, “Why is it considered normal for your boss to determine your healthcare options in the first place? Relying on employers for healthcare means the company has more leverage over the worker… this can mean an extension of the boss’s control outside of work hours.”

But, how did we get to this point? What happened to the free market? see more…

WASHINGTON, D.C. — February third and fourth were national days of action to repeal Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act (Feb. 3) and to Stop War On Iran (Feb. 4). I hand-delivered a letter to the office of each of the members of Congress who supposedly represent me in DC requesting a repeal of sections 1021 and 1022 of NDAA.

The secretary at Senator John Cornyn’s office said, “I want to let you know that the final version doesn’t apply to U.S. citizens.”

I replied “it says requirement for military detention, not the ability for the military to detain” it also exempts the FBI, CIA, and other federal, State and local agencies from being able to detain citizens!”

He replied, “hmm, I never thought about it like that.”

I did not mention, but thought about as I left, the fact that non-citizens can and are detained indefinitely. If the people being detained in Guantanamo Bay and other military prisons around the world are the terrorists the federal government claims they are; it should be easy to convince a judge or jury of this fact. Unfortunately, that kind of logic is not prevalent in DC. The Congress and President would rather continue the practice of detaining people without trial on the suspicion of being involved in terrorists activities or, if the person is “high-profile,” kill the person without trial.

In a similar manner (through lies and deception), the President and Congress are beating the war drum to ramp up support for an attack on Iran. While I was not able to take part in the National Day of Protest to Stop War On Iran, I did send letters to the three members of Congress who supposedly represent me in DC letting them know that I oppose any attack against Iran.

Cornyn sent a form-letter reply which states, in part, “I share your concern that Iran represents a growing threat to the United States… [Iran's] drive to acquire a nuclear weapon is a grave concern… Iran continues to promote instability in the Middle East.”

“I cosponsored S. 1048… this legislation would further expand sanctions against Iran.” Furthermore, “You may be certain that I will continue to advocate policies and legislation to help ensure our national security in the face of this growing threat.”

First, I do not believe Iran is a threat to the safety and security of any person living in these United States of America (or any other country, for that matter). Secondly, Iran isn’t attempting to get a nuclear weapon, rather nuclear energy. Thirdly, sanctions – imposed on any country – do not hurt the government, only the people living in that country. Finally, the best way to ensure our national security is to stop meddling in the affairs of foreign nations.

In the words of Thomas Jefferson, we should seek “peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.”

Will Iran be the next “front” in the Global War on Terror? It has appeared that way for the past several years. In fact, the American government has been involved in the affairs of Iran for some time.

A petition being circulated by the Solidarity Center [PDF] states, “Iran has suffered greatly at the hands of the U.S. We recall the U.S. overthrew the democratically elected government of Dr. M. Mossadegh and returned the Shah to the Peacock Throne – ‘the proudest achievement of the CIA’. For 25 years the Shah ruled Iran with an iron fist for the benefit of U.S. oil corporations before the people of Iran, in the millions, overthrew his tyranny at a terrible cost in lives. For the past 27 years U.S. sanctions have impeded Iran’s right to development and brought great suffering to the people.”

Do not forget the rush to invade Iraq after the attacks on September 11, 2001. In October of 2002, President Bush said, “… we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”

“Now in the Obama Administration, we see reports that are all too similar being made to justify military action against the people of Iran.” The petition by the Solidarity Center continues, “taking Iran to the UN Security Council is a prelude for unilateral action. Just as in the case of Iraq, none of the claims made by the U.S. government stand up to unbiased scrutiny.”

During the recent State of the Union address, President Obama seemed intent on continuing to involve the American government in Iran. He said, “and we will safeguard America’s own security against those who threaten our citizens, our friends, and our interests. Look at Iran. Through the power of our diplomacy, a world that was once divided about how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program now stands as one. The regime is more isolated than ever before; its leaders are faced with crippling sanctions, and as long as they shirk their responsibilities, this pressure will not relent. Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal.”

I urge you to make your voice heard. Let your friends, family, neighbors and elected officials know that you demand an end to the U.S. drive towards war with Iran; you demand an end to the U.S. campaign of lies, demonization, and sanctions directed at the people of Iran; and most importantly, let them know that you oppose any military attack on Iran.

President Obama wants us to imagine an America that is within reach. I would rather have you imagine a world a little further down the road. The President wants “[a] country that leads the world in educating its people. An America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs. A future where we’re in control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren’t so tied to unstable parts of the world. An economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded.”

I prefer to imagine a world in which governments allow you to educate your children as you see fit, without interference. A world in which governments allow you to start and run your own business and create jobs without interference from bureaucrats. A world where you are allowed to purchase energy from any number of sources or companies that do not have special government privilege, or supply your own energy from wind or solar and be able to share the excess with your neighbors without government regulation. A world where you are able to use the currency of your choice without threat of violating a legal tender law. Such a world would have an economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded.

The President also said “We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.”

If the President were serious about having an economy where everyone plays by the same set of rules; he would immediately ask Congress to revoke all government contracts, abolish the IRS, abolish the Federal Reserve which serves to protect the large banking institutions, and work with the Governors of the 50 States to abolish the use of eminent domain, abolish special privilege given to “corporations,” repeal zoning laws and abolish welfare and licensing laws which do little more than stifle the free market. A world without government interference would be a world where everyone gets a “fair shot.”

President Obama additionally said that he will “fight obstruction” in Congress. As long as bills that create more laws, continue funding the military occupation of foreign nations, take away more rights of the people and increase spending are being proposed, I believe that obstruction is the only admirable action that any member of Congress could commit.

In closing, the President says “[m]illions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules every day deserve a government and a financial system that does the same.” I am curious what President Obama means by this statement. I doubt that he intends to remove the special privilege given to the Federal Reserve System. I doubt he will remove government contracts and privatize all government agencies. I doubt he will ask Congress to abolish the postal monopoly that prohibits competition on delivery of first class mail. I also doubt that President Obama will request the repeal of “sovereign immunity” which protects governments from civil suits when a government (or government employee) violates someone’s rights.

As long as there is a central bank (whether private or government run) there will be “phony financial profits” and “bad debt;” two things Obama says he wants to eliminate. If the President were serious about moving forward with a blueprint for an economy built to last; he would heed the advice I’ve already mentioned. The only way forward, is to remove the obstacles – placed by government at all levels – from the road.

Mass action on January 18, 2012 won a small victory for opponents of the internet censorship bills SOPA and PIPA. Many websites “blacked out” in protest and asked visitors to sign an online petition. Google reports that 4.5 million people added their name to an online petition to Congress to oppose internet censorship. Possibly in response to these actions, Lamar Smith, the main sponsor of SOPA, announced on Friday that he would delay further action on the bill. The Washington Post reports, “The action by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) on the Stop Online Piracy Act came a couple of hours after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said that he would delay a cloture vote on a similar Senate bill, the Protect IP (Intellectual Property) Act.”

Neither Reid nor Smith said that they would not attempt to add the text of SOPA or PIPA into another piece of legislation with a better chance of passing. In fact, it is not unusual for Congress to combine unpopular proposals to legislation that is almost guaranteed to pass. DownsizeDC reports, “The REAL ID Act is a perfect example of how Congressional leaders pass laws that lack majority support. This bill created a scheme Americans have always opposed — a national ID card. This idea had so little support that it couldn’t even be brought to a vote in the Senate. Yet , Congressional leaders got it passed anyway, by attaching it to a bill Senators were afraid to oppose — the ‘Emergency, Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief.’ (May, 2005)” In similar fashion, a provision to ban online gambling was added into a port security bill.

Voters could lobby their so called “Representatives” on every piece of legislation. However, since Congress doesn’t have time to read bills before voting – and sometimes before debate; voters certainly don’t have time to read the bills AND lobby Congress. However, there is an easier way to get Congress to 1) know what they’re voting for (or against); 2) not combine multiple pieces of legislation; and 3) no longer hide the true subjects of their bills behind propagandistic titles such as the “USA PATRIOT Act,” the “Protect America Act,” or the “No Child Left Behind Act.”

I urge you to contact your Congressional representatives asking, nay demanding, they introduce and pass the bills of the DownsizeDC Agenda. The DownsizeDC Agenda consists of the Read the Bills Act, One Subject at a Time Act, Write the Laws Act, Enumerated Powers Act, Free Competition in Currency Act and proposals to have Congress “Cap the Debt” and Fight Deficit Spending.

Huffington Post reports a small victory against SOPA (H.R. 3261 “Stop Online Piracy Act”) and it’s counterpart in the Senate, PIPA (“Protect IP Act”), claiming that President Obama will not support the current legislation. A statement released on behalf of the Obama Administration states, “… we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet. Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small.”

The statement issued by Victoria Espinel, Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator at Office of Management and Budget, Aneesh Chopra, U.S. Chief Technology Officer, and Howard Schmidt, Special Assistant to the President and Cybersecurity Coordinator for National Security Staff further states, “We expect and encourage all private parties, including both content creators and Internet platform providers working together, to adopt voluntary measures and best practices to reduce online piracy.”

Some people may interpret this statement by the White House as a sign that Obama will veto SOPA or PIPA if either passes. However, I’m not that optimistic.

Huffington Post further reports “Moving forward, we will continue to work with Congress on a bipartisan basis on legislation that provides new tools needed in the global fight against piracy and counterfeiting, while vigorously defending an open Internet based on the values of free expression, privacy, security and innovation,” the letter also read. SOPA sponsor and House Judiciary Chairman (R-Texas) Lamar Smith issued a statement of his own, “I welcome today’s announcement that the White House will support legislation to combat online piracy that protects free speech, the Internet and America’s intellectual property. That’s precisely what the Stop Online Piracy Act does.”

I previously wrote about SOPA, citing that it could be interpreted to blacklist sites such as YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, Flickr and many more. Since then, the bill has been amended to include “immunity” for sites that voluntarily censor themselves, which means it will be harder to share information online. I do not believe for one second that SOPA, PIPA or any other “anti-piracy” legislation from Congress will protect the free flow of information.

ATTENTION TROOPS AND DUPES AND FRUITY LOOPS. STANDING ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

1) COPY-PASTE INTO TEXT EDITOR 2) PRINT 3) SEARCH FOR NEARBY RALLY 4) GO TO NEARBY RALLY 5) WINNING!

With the major party Presidential nomination process coming full swing and the number of contenders dwindling, the more those who remain need to answer the tough questions. However, we must recognize that the tough questions will not be asked by the mainstream media. With that in mind, I present the following questions in hopes that one or more candidates (from a major or minor party) supply answers to the public.

1. Congress routinely passes bills that are hundreds of pages long and contain multiple unrelated sections. Some examples being the “indefinite detention provision” of the National Defense Authorization Act; a provision to ban online gambling added into the 2006 SAFE Port Act and REAL ID (which failed to pass on it’s own merit) added to a military spending bill. If elected President, would you urge Congress to stop this practice? Why or why not? If yes, would you urge Congress to pass the One Subject at a Time Act?
    
2. Many bills – especially the “major legislation” – are hundreds of pages long and many are not finalized until hours before being brought up for a vote, thus giving Congressmen little time to read the bill. Do you believe that Congress should read the bills that they vote on? Why or why not? If yes; would you urge Congress to pass the Read the Bills Act, which would require bills to be read in full on the floor of both houses of Congress and posted online at least seven days before being brought up for a vote?
     
3. The U.S. military currently has troops in 158 nations (not counting military personnel at Embassies) with undeclared “wars” in at least a half-dozen countries. Do you support the continued presence of military around the world? Why or why not? If yes; please explain how this ensures “freedom” (even though the Congress has passed laws that have destroyed the Bill of Rights) and does not create enemies?
    
4. The Congress has been passing legislation to infringe on the individual rights of people for decades. Do you support a repeal the USA PATRIOT Act, Military Commissions Act & FISA? Do you support abolishing the NSA, TSA, CIA and any other federal agency that infringes on individual rights? Why or why not?
    
5. Before the creation of the Federal Reserve, inflation was virtually non-existent in the United States; since it was created and given a monopoly on creation of currency, the value of the U.S. Dollar has declined 97%. Do you support abolishing legal tender laws that force people to use the Federal Reserve Note instead of a commodity backed currency of their choice? Do you support auditing and/or abolishing the Federal Reserve? Why or why not?
    
6. Do you have a plan to balance the federal budget and reduce the size, scope & power of the federal government? If so, what is your plan? If not; why not? What is your opinion of repealing the 16th Amendment and thus repealing the federal income tax? If in favor, how do you propose funding the federal government?
    
7. Do you support allowing citizens of the several territories of these United States of America to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to become a State or an independent country? Why or why not?
   Do you support extending the rights of self-determination to members of Native American Indian tribes? Why or why not?
    
8. Since Congress is authorized by Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution of these United States to create federal election law, would you urge Congress to pass a federal ballot access law which eases the requirements for placing a minor party and/or independent candidate on the ballot for Congress and President? Why or why not? If yes, what is your ideal ballot access requirement?

Publisher’s note: We are looking to you, everyone in the public sphere, to aid us in continually pressuring these politicians to address the questions we believe are of of critical importance. Be persistent and respectful, especially if you believe they are trying to dodge and weasel and change the subject. Repeat the question again if this happens.

Thanks/Congratulations in advance to the growing ranks of independent reporters and video bloggers who truly are making a visible impact on the 2012 elections. The future of this country is more in your hands than your corporate competitors will ever admit. Don’t be shy, and good luck on the 2012 campaign trail of fear and loathing!

The war drum against Iran beats louder, thanks in part to a ruling from U.S. District Court Judge George Daniels on December 15, 2011 ruling that Iran was linked to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The Eurasia Review reports, “Judge Daniels had announced his ruling in Havlish, et al. v. bin Laden, et al., in open court on Thursday, December 15, 2011, following a three-hour courtroom presentation by the families’ attorneys. Then Judge Daniels entered a written Order of Judgment backed by 53 pages of detailed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Friday, December 23, 2011.”

I must ask:

• Will this court ruling be used as justification to invade Iran as part of the Global War on Terror?
• Just because a Judge said that Iran was behind 9/11; does that make it true?

A glance at past court rulings will show that judges are not always right.

In Plessy v. Ferguson, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Louisiana law requiring separate accommodations for “white” and “non-white” passengers on trains was not unconstitutional. The Plessy decision set the precedent of “separate but equal” which allowed Jim Crow laws to stay in place for another 58 years. We can now look back at Plessy and realize that it was a bad decision, and that Justice Harlan was correct when he wrote in his dissent “In my opinion, the judgment this day rendered will, in time, prove to be quite as pernicious as the decision made by this tribunal in the Dred Scott Case… I am of opinion that the state of Louisiana is inconsistent with the personal liberty of citizens… and hostile to both the spirit and letter of the constitution of the United States. If laws of like character should be enacted in the several states of the Union, the effect would be in the highest degree mischievous.”

In the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “a free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a ‘citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.” The Court additionally ruled, “a slave does not become entitled to his freedom where the owner takes him to reside in a State where slavery is not permitted and afterwards brings him back to [a State where it is permitted].”

Ironically, the first person in what became the United States of America to convince a court that he had the right to his servant for life, instead of a term of years was Anthony Johnson, a free black man in Jamestown, Virginia. The Northampton County Court ruled that John Casor was not a free man after serving his term of years and that Anthony Johnson had the right to the service of John Casor for life.

In yet another bad court decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, under direction from the President or Congress, American citizens can be detained during a time of war, specifically those citizens of the same ethnicity as “the enemy.” The Court ruled, “because Congress, reposing its confidence in this time of war in our military leaders… determined that they should have the power to do just this.”

Allow me to ask again: just because a judge says something, does that make it true?

It’s time to once again look back at a year gone by.

The year began with the 112th Congress taking office and some members of Congress attempting to appease the TEA Party crowd by reading the Constitution to begin the session. However, the Congress continued to violate the document they swore to uphold by passing, among other legislation, an extension to the USA PATRIOT Act, an extension to FISA and a provision that allows American citizens to be detained indefinitely without trial.

In what became known as the Arab Spring, mass protests broke out in North Africa and the Middle East, with the protesters successfully ousting Tunisian President Ben Ali, Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh and Libyan “leader” Muammar Gaddafi; however, the American military played a role in Yemen and Libya. The Arab Spring has also seen uprisings in Algeria, Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Syria and several other countries.

Most of the summer was spent debating whether or not and by how much the federal debt ceiling should be raised. And as I predicted, “Instead of saying, ‘No, we will not raise the debt ceiling.’ Members of Congress will come to a compromise that will increase the debt ceiling, further inflate the currency and continue to enslave tax-payers with a perpetual debt that will never be paid off.” The compromise involved raising the “debt ceiling” while supposedly cutting $2 trillion of federal spending over the next decade, while actually increasing federal spending by $1.8 trillion over the same time frame.

While Congress was debating how much further to go into debt, peaceful people were being arrested for dancing in public, selling lemonade without a permit and refusing to pay extortion fees to use their own property. Not long after the deal to raise the debt ceiling, a group of people decided to “Occupy Wall Street”. This “occupation” soon spread to solidarity protests across the country. I originally thought the protests would fizzle out around Thanksgiving, however the occupy protests do not seem to be going away.

However, 2011 was not all bad. Courts and juries, at both the State and federal level, upheld the right of individuals to film public officials while on duty. The 1st Circuit Court ruled that filming public officials while on duty is a “basic and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment.”

The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal in Malaysia found George W. Bush and Tony Blair guilty of War Crimes with plans to hold a separate hearing next year on charges of torture linked to the Iraq war against Bush, former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and four others.

During 2011, Free Patriot Press published its sixth and seventh books; Don’t Be Tread On by Kevin Kobe and Duopoly: How the Republicrats Control the Electoral Process by Darryl W. Perry. Books published by Free Patriot Press during 2010 won awards from both LAVA and Freedom Book Club.

The Boston Tea Party – the political party formed in 2006 with a one sentence platform, “The Boston Tea Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose” – nominated as Tiffany Briscoe and Kimberly Johnson as their 2012 Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates and will attempt ballot access in approximately 15 States.

Much like years past, this year has seen its share of ups and downs, natural and unnatural disasters, more freedoms were taken away than gained and governments at all levels expanded their authority. Yet authority was also eroded and circumvented in new and novel ways. Here’s to more freedom in 2012 and beyond!