Posts Tagged ‘ “US Constitution” ’

Do You Honestly Know Your Constitution and Understand Your Rights?

I was pondering this question today and after hearing from my 10 year old that she had no idea what happened on Sept 11, 2001 I was convinced that most American’s don’t really know their Constitution or their rights. Hence, I am putting up this information!

There’s a wonderful document that I found online. It was originally published by  The Deseret News, 19 March 1945 through 10 April 1945 as a 20 part series and though it may be dated, the message is still the same. What is incredible to me is how…. almost prophetic it was for it’s time! Read “Know Your Constitution”….

This was one of my favorite sections because, as we all well know, this is NOT how things are today!

5. The People Rule

The people order and the king obeys. The people speak and the crown gives ear. The people are the masters, the king their servant. This is the true order of civil government.

The Declaration of Independence, after affirming the existence of inalienable rights, states, “That to secure
these rights. governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The people are sovereign. They say what form of government they will have and what powers it may exercise. The functions of government are to be delegated by them to their representatives and only such of the powers of government as are delegated can be exercised. Sovereignty is to flow from the people to their governments and no longer from the government to the people.

As a nation we need to get back to basics; we need to get the attention of those that “rule” us and let them know that we are taking back our rights. Unfortunately voting for anyone in the upcoming elections will not ensure any message is sent because you have Obama and Romney running….. We need better options!

Jailed for $280: The Return of Debtors’ Prisons

I just came across this article and I could not believe my eyes. People that have life threatening/debilitating illnesses and injuries, the unemployed and the mentally ill are being put in DEBTOR’S PRISON for not being able to pay. The big banks can’t pay and they get a loan from the tax payers…. This simply makes no sense! The federal government can’t pay up so why the hell aren’t all of our representatives being thrown in jail??

By Alain Sherter | CBS MoneyWatch

How did breast cancer survivor Lisa Lindsay end up behind bars? She didn’t pay a medical bill — one the Herrin, Ill., teaching assistant was told she didn’t owe. “She got a $280 medical bill in error and was told she didn’t have to pay it,” The Associated Press reports. “But the bill was turned over to a collection agency, and eventually state troopers showed up at her home and took her to jail in handcuffs.”

Although the U.S. abolished debtors’ prisons in the 1830s, more than a third of U.S. states allow the police to haul people in who don’t pay all manner of debts, from bills for health care services to credit card and auto loans. In parts of Illinois, debt collectors commonly use publicly funded courts, sheriff’s deputies, and country jails to pressure people who owe even small amounts to pay up, according to the AP.

Under the law, debtors aren’t arrested for nonpayment, but rather for failing to respond to court hearings, pay legal fines, or otherwise showing “contempt of court” in connection with a creditor lawsuit. That loophole has lawmakers in the Illinois House of Representatives concerned enough to pass a bill in March that would make it illegal to send residents of the state to jail if they can’t pay a debt. The measure awaits action in the senate.

“Creditors have been manipulating the court system to extract money from the unemployed, veterans, even seniors who rely solely on their benefits to get by each month,” Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan said last month in a statement voicing support for the legislation. “Too many people have been thrown in jail simply because they’re too poor to pay their debts. We cannot allow these illegal abuses to continue.”

Debt collectors typically avoid filing suit against debtors, a representative with the Illinois Collectors Association tells the AP. “A consumer that has been arrested or jailed can’t pay a debt. We want to work with consumers to resolve issues,” he said.

Yet Illinois isn’t the only state where residents get locked up for owing money. A 2010 report by the American Civil Liberties Union that focused on only five states — Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Washington — found that people were being jailed at “increasingly alarming rates” over legal debts. Cases ranged from a woman who was arrested four separate times for failing to pay $251 in fines and court costs related to a fourth-degree misdemeanor conviction, to a mentally ill juvenile jailed by a judge over a previous conviction for stealing school supplies.

According to the ACLU: “The sad truth is that debtors’ prisons are flourishing today, more than two decades after the Supreme Court prohibited imprisoning those who are too poor to pay their legal debts. In this era of shrinking budgets, state and local governments have turned aggressively to using the threat and reality of imprisonment to squeeze revenue out of the poorest defendants who appear in their courts.”

Some states also apply “poverty penalties,” including late fees, payment plan fees, and interest when people are unable to pay all their debts at once, according to a report by the New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice. Alabama charges a 30 percent collection fee, for instance, while Florida allows private debt collectors to add a 40 percent surcharge on the original debt. Some Florida counties also use so-called collection courts, where debtors can be jailed but have no right to a public defender.

“Many states are imposing new and often onerous ‘user fees’ on individuals with criminal convictions,” the authors of the Brennan Center report wrote. “Yet far from being easy money, these fees impose severe — and often hidden — costs on communities, taxpayers, and indigent people convicted of crimes. They create new paths to prison for those unable to pay their debts and make it harder to find employment and housing as well to meet child-support obligations.”

Such practices, heightened in recent years by the effects of the recession, amount to criminalizing poverty, say critics in urging federal authorities to intervene. “More people are unemployed, more people are struggling financially, and more creditors are trying to get their debt paid,” Madigan told the AP.

Source

 

Obama Birth Certificate Maybe Forged, Sheriff Joe Arpaio Says

Go Sheriff Joe! I knew he’s been investigating the Obama birth certificate issue but we now have the selective service issue as well. Who would have thought it? Sheriff Joe has my support on this! I corrected all the typing errors in the article…..

ABC NewsBy BEN FORER | ABC News – Thu, Mar 1, 2012

Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz.,said today that he and his investigators have evidence that President Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery. He also raised questions about the authenticity of Obama’s selective service registration, though critics quickly accused him of pandering for votes.

OBAMA-BIRTH-CERTIFICATE-LONG-FORM

OBAMA-BIRTH-CERTIFICATE-LONG-FORM

“We believe probable cause exists indicating that forgery and fraud may have been committed, not only in President Obama’s long-form birth certificate, but more disturbing evidence suggests that another fraud may have been committed regarding his selected service registration card,” Arpaio, 79, said at a press conference. “Based on all of the evidence presented and investigated I cannot in good faith report to you that these documents are authentic.”

The findings come after a six month investigation by Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse, a group of volunteers, many of whom have backgrounds in law enforcement.

“My investigators believe that the long-form birth certificate was manufactured electronically and that it did not originate in a paper format as claimed by the White House,” Arpaio said.

Arpaio’s investigators said the issue they are most concerned with is that the “date stamp and registrar’s stamp appear to have been imported from unknown outside sources.”

Arpaio said he decided to undertake the investigation last August after members of the Tea Party asked him to do so. However, some critics say the tough-talking Arizona sheriff is using it as a way to distract from his own legal problems as he seeks a sixth term in office.

“You say I need this to get elected? Are you kidding me? I’ve been elected five times. I don’t need this,” he was quoted by The Associated Press as saying in response.

Arpaio faces a federal grand jury investigation on criminal abuse-of-power allegations; the Justice Department has accused him of racial profiling Latinos. And there has been an accusation that hundreds of sex-crime cases were inadequately investigated by his department.

Obama’s birth certificate has been called into question many times during his political career and last April the White House released copies of it in an attempt to quiet conspiracy theorists after Dondald Trump questioned whether the president was born in the U.S. as the Constitution requires.

In response to Arpaio’s press conference today, Ben LaBolt, press secretary for the Obama campaign, tweeted a link to watch the live feed of Arpaio’s announcement. The link actually led to the theme song from “The X-Files,” a TV show that played heavily on conspiracy theories.

Coincidentally, Arpaio’s press conference also came on the same day Obama’s campaign unveiled its new Facebook timeline. At the very bottom of the page it reads “Born on August 4, 1961. Made in the USA.” The post is accompanied by a photo of a coffee mug with Obama’s birth certificate on it.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Source

Goodbye, First Amendment: ‘Trespass Bill’ will make protest illegal

Where in God’s name are our rights???

RT
February 29, 2012

Just when you thought the government couldn’t ruin the First Amendment any further: The House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday that outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it.

The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor of H.R. 347 late Monday, a bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. In the bill, Congress officially makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House, which, on the surface, seems not just harmless and necessary, but somewhat shocking that such a rule isn’t already on the books. The wording in the bill, however, extends to allow the government to go after much more than tourists that transverse the wrought iron White House fence.

Under the act, the government is also given the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest anywhere in the country.

Under current law, White House trespassers are prosecuted under a local ordinance, a Washington, DC legislation that can bring misdemeanor charges for anyone trying to get close to the president without authorization. Under H.R. 347, a federal law will formally be applied to such instances, but will also allow the government to bring charges to protesters, demonstrators and activists at political events and other outings across America.

The new legislation allows prosecutors to charge anyone who enters a building without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function with a federal offense if Secret Service is on the scene, but the law stretches to include not just the president’s palatial Pennsylvania Avenue home. Under the law, any building or grounds where the president is visiting — even temporarily — is covered, as is any building or grounds “restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance.”

It’s not just the president who would be spared from protesters, either.

Covered under the bill is any person protected by the Secret Service. Although such protection isn’t extended to just everybody, making it a federal offense to even accidently disrupt an event attended by a person with such status essentially crushes whatever currently remains of the right to assemble and peacefully protest.

Hours after the act passed, presidential candidate Rick Santorum was granted Secret Service protection. For the American protester, this indeed means that glitter-bombing the former Pennsylvania senator is officially a very big no-no, but it doesn’t stop with just him. Santorum’s coverage under the Secret Service began on Tuesday, but fellow GOP hopeful Mitt Romney has already been receiving such security. A campaign aide who asked not to be identified confirmed last week to CBS News that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has sought Secret Service protection as well. Even former contender Herman Cain received the armed protection treatment when he was still in the running for the Republican Party nod.

In the text of the act, the law is allowed to be used against anyone who knowingly enters or remains in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so, but those grounds are considered any area where someone — rather it’s President Obama, Senator Santorum or Governor Romney — will be temporarily visiting, whether or not the public is even made aware. Entering such a facility is thus outlawed, as is disrupting the orderly conduct of “official functions,” engaging in disorderly conduct “within such proximity to” the event or acting violent to anyone, anywhere near the premises. Under that verbiage, that means a peaceful protest outside a candidate’s concession speech would be a federal offense, but those occurrences covered as special event of national significance don’t just stop there, either. And neither does the list of covered persons that receive protection.

Outside of the current presidential race, the Secret Service is responsible for guarding an array of politicians, even those from outside America. George W Bush is granted protection until ten years after his administration ended, or 2019, and every living president before him is eligible for life-time, federally funded coverage. Visiting heads of state are extended an offer too, and the events sanctioned as those of national significance — a decision that is left up to the US Department of Homeland Security — extends to more than the obvious. While presidential inaugurations and meeting of foreign dignitaries are awarded the title, nearly three dozen events in all have been considered a National Special Security Event (NSSE) since the term was created under President Clinton. Among past events on the DHS-sanctioned NSSE list are Super Bowl XXXVI, the funerals of Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, most State of the Union addresses and the 2008 Democratic and Republican National Conventions.

With Secret Service protection awarded to visiting dignitaries, this also means, for instance, that the federal government could consider a demonstration against any foreign president on American soil as a violation of federal law, as long as it could be considered disruptive to whatever function is occurring.

When thousands of protesters are expected to descend on Chicago this spring for the 2012 G8 and NATO summits, they will also be approaching the grounds of a National Special Security Event. That means disruptive activity, to whichever court has to consider it, will be a federal offense under the act.

And don’t forget if you intend on fighting such charges, you might not be able to rely on evidence of your own. In the state of Illinois, videotaping the police, under current law, brings criminals charges. Don’t fret. It’s not like the country will really try to enforce it — right?

On the bright side, does this mean that the law could apply to law enforcement officers reprimanded for using excessive force on protesters at political events? Probably. Of course, some fear that the act is being created just to keep those demonstrations from ever occuring, and given the vague language on par with the loose definition of a “terrorist” under the NDAA, if passed this act is expected to do a lot more harm to the First Amendment than good.

United States Representative Justin Amash (MI-03) was one of only three lawmakers to vote against the act when it appeared in the House late Monday. Explaining his take on the act through his official Facebook account on Tuesday, Rep. Amash writes, “The bill 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.”

“Some government officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their safety. But criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity — even if that activity is annoying to those government officials — violates our rights,” adds the representative.

Now that the act has overwhelmingly made it through the House, the next set of hands to sift through its pages could very well be President Barack Obama; the US Senate had already passed the bill back on February 6. Less than two months ago, the president approved the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, essentially suspending habeas corpus from American citizens. Could the next order out of the Executive Branch be revoking some of the Bill of Rights? Only if you consider the part about being able to assemble a staple of the First Amendment, really. Don’t worry, though. Obama was, after all, a constitutional law professor. When he signed the NDAA on December 31, he accompanied his signature with a signing statement that let Americans know that, just because he authorized the indefinite detention of Americans didn’t mean he thought it was right.

Should President Obama suspend the right to assemble, Americans might expect another apology to accompany it in which the commander-in-chief condemns the very act he authorizes. If you disagree with such a decision, however, don’t take it to the White House. Sixteen-hundred Pennsylvania Avenue and the vicinity is, of course, covered under this act.

Source

Ron Paul Confronts Bernanke: “Do You Buy Your Own Groceries?”

Ron Paul is simply the man! What more can really be said about the guy that wants to shake every tree in Washington and see what bad apples fall?

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
February 29, 2012

Tense stand off as Congressman notes Fed is destroying dollar purchasing power

GOP presidential candidate Ron paul took a break from campaigning today and diverted his attention back to his role on the House Financial Services Committee with the semiannual visit of Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke.

In a scathing opening statement, Paul went on the offensive against the Fed:

“What we are witnessing today is the end stages of a grand experiment,” Paul said, adding that the Fed’s control over the nation’s money supply has directly caused economic bubbles and all but destroyed the purchasing power of the dollar.

Noting that the Fed will soon end because it is facilitating too much debt, the Congressman added “I’m anxiously waiting for this day… Reform has to come.”

Turning his attention to Bernanke, Paul asked the Fed chairman whether he did his own grocery shopping. A somewhat bemused Bernanke replied in the affirmative, to which Paul hit back “OK. So you’re aware of the prices,” before commenting on government denial of real levels of inflation.

“This argument of prices going up two percent, nobody believes it.” Paul said. “The old CPI says prices are going up at nine percent.”

“People on fixed incomes, they are really hurting. The middle class is really hurting. Because their inflation rate is very much higher than the government tries to tell them, and that’s why they lose trust in government.”

“You say inflation is about 2%, I say 9%, let’s just call it 5%,” Paul told Bernanke. “That inflation is taking money away from the people….Someone is stealing wealth and this is very upsetting”

The Congressman then pulled out a silver eagle, explaining that it has retained it’s real worth and that hard assets should be used as currency as outlined in the Constitution.

Telling Bernanke that in 2006, when he took over at the Fed, an ounce of silver bought about 4 gallons of gas, where as today it will buy 11 gallons. “That’s preservation of value,” said Paul.

Paul called for a competing currency to the dollar, stating that the laws should be changed to allow precious metals to settle contract disputes and other legal obligations.

Bernanke addressed Paul by jokingly saying “good to see you again, Congressman”, before somewhat derisively saying he would be happy to consider the Congressman’s ideas and help him work out what currencies to hold.

Paul hit back by saying the government goes after those who attempt to use gold and silver as alternatives to depreciating Federal Reserve notes as if they are criminals, telling Bernanke “the record of what you’ve done is destroy the currency,”

Watch the video below:

http://youtu.be/nTgAhWMhcFs

New Government Initiative Would Circumvent Second Amendment By Targeting Ammunition Not Guns

I was just reading something yesterday about the cost of ammunition going up and there being less on the shelves. I guess the government figures if they can’t stop us from buying guns then by God, we won’t have any ammo!

Mac Slavo
SHTFplan.com
February 23, 2012

With over 10 million guns sold in the United States in 2011, violent crime rising significantly as the economic crisis worsens, and self defense killings sky rocketing, it’s becoming increasingly unpopular for politicians to call for restrictions on firearms. If anything, even though government officials in states like Illinois and New Jersey are  attempting to outlaw guns completely, the public outcry has been deafening, with each attempt met by protests and solidarity from individual rights and gun advocates all over the country.

no ammo for you

It’s clear that the majority of Americans support their inherent right to bear arms. But, even though the strategy of attacking our second Amendment is wholly unpopular and failing miserably, misguided government officials are beginning to explore ever more novel ways of circumventing the US Constitution and Second Amendment altogether.

Like New Jersey’s recent attempt to ban ammunition, Illinois is now taking aim at ammo. This latest legislation would add a surtax to every box of ammunition sold, and if allowed, would set an alarming precedent that effectively threatens our ability to utilize a firearm for its intended purpose.

State Rep. Kelly Cassidy, in a bill introduced earlier this month, proposed a 2 percent surtax on ammunition. The proceeds would go toward a “high-crime trauma center grant fund,” which would then send the tax money to trauma centers in “high-crime areas.”

The idea is to begin to offset the high cost of gun violence. Mark Walsh, campaign director for the Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, told FoxNews.com that cost often ends up being shouldered by these urban trauma centers.

“(The money would go) into communities here in Illinois that have been damaged with gun violence,” he said. “I think it’s a legitimate way to pursue funding.”

“We aren’t causing the problem. They are,” Pearson said. “It’s an attack on firearm owners and their rights. … They think that because we like to target shoot and hunt, we’re bad people, and we should pay for all the ills of the city of Chicago.”

Since gun owners in Illinois have to have a special ID card which requires a background check to obtain, Pearson said those committing crimes of gun violence aren’t likely to be paying much into the proposed tax fund.

“They’re not buying their ammunition (legally). They’re not paying any part of the tax. They’re getting their stuff illegally,” he said.

He estimated a typical box of ammo runs for about $25 in Illinois, meaning the average tax per box would be about 50 cents.

Source: Fox News

Supporters of the new legislation argue that proceeds from this small tax will be used to help the greater community. In this case, we would argue that the  road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The risks of an abusive government having the ability to essentially set the price of a product through taxation is a scary proposition. Anytime government has ever identified a new good or service to tax, if it is allowed to do so, it unabashedly continues to raise those taxes in perpetuity. Gasoline, alcohol and cigarettes are key examples of this. In New York, for example, you pay  more in taxes for a pack of cigarettes than the actual cigarettes. This same model will be introduced to ammunition if the sycophants in our local, state and federal government aren’t stopped.

You can be assured that if legislation like this isn’t stopped swiftly and unequivocally, it will spread like a cancer throughout the rest of the country.  Like cigarettes and booze, ammunition, it will be argued, is a danger to public health and the general welfare, and as such, will require high taxation to cover the adverse social impact it causes. It’s only a 2% tax today, but once the idea takes hold without protest, it will without a doubt lead to massive price increases, leaving many without the ability to exercise a right that is a pillar of the US Constitution.

Source