MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Constitutional rights’

Insults to Black History – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on June 25, 2020

Self-destructive behavior that has become acceptable, particularly that in predominantly black schools, is nothing less than a gross betrayal of a struggle, paid with blood, sweat and tears by previous generations, to make possible today’s educational opportunities that are being routinely squandered.

Government should do its job of protecting constitutional rights. After that, black people should be simply left alone as opposed to being smothered by the paternalism inspired by white guilt. On that note, I just cannot resist the temptation to refer readers to my “Proclamation of Amnesty and Pardon,” which grants Americans of European ancestry amnesty and pardon for their own grievances and those of their forebears against my people so that they stop feeling guilty and stop acting like fools in their relationship with Americans of African ancestry.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/06/walter-e-williams/insults-to-black-history/

By

Many whites are ashamed, saddened and feel guilty about our history of slavery, Jim Crow and gross racial discrimination. Many black people remain angry over the injustices of the past and what they see as injustices of the present. Both blacks and whites can benefit from a better appreciation of black history.

Often overlooked or ignored is the fact that, as a group, black Americans have made the greatest gains, over some of the highest hurdles, and in a shorter span of time than any other racial group in history.

For example, if one totaled up the earnings and spending of black Americans and considered us as a separate nation with our own gross domestic product, we would rank well within the top 20 richest nations. A black American, Gen. Colin Powell, once headed the world’s mightiest military. Black Americans are among the world’s most famous personalities, and a few black Americans are among the world’s richest people such as investor Robert F. Smith, IT service provider David Steward, Oprah Winfrey, and basketball star Michael Jordan. Plus, there was a black U.S. president.

The significance of these achievements cannot be overstated. When the Civil War ended, neither a slave nor a slave owner would have believed such progress would be possible in less than a century and a half — if ever. As such, it speaks to the intestinal fortitude of a people. Just as important, it speaks to the greatness of a nation in which such gains were possible. Nowhere else on earth could such progress have been achieved except in the United States of America.

The issue that confronts us is how these gains can be extended to about one-quarter of the black population for whom they have proven elusive. The first step is to acknowledge that the civil rights struggle is over and won. At one time, black Americans did not enjoy the constitutional guarantees as everyone else. Now we do. While no one can deny the existence of residual racial discrimination, racial discrimination is not the major problem confronting a large segment of the black community.

A major problem is that some public and private policies reward dependency and irresponsibility. Chief among these policies is the welfare state that has fostered a 75% rate of out of wedlock births and decimated the black family that had survived Jim Crow and racism. Keep in mind that in 1940 the black illegitimacy rate was 11% and most black children were raised in two-parent families. Most poverty, about 25%, is found in female-headed households. The poverty rate among husband-and-wife black families has been in the single digits for more than two decades.

Black people can be thankful that double standards and public and private policies rewarding inferiority and irresponsibility were not a part of the 1920s, ’30s, ’40s and ’50s. If there were, then there would not have been the kind of intellectual excellence and spiritual courage that created the world’s most successful civil rights movement. From the late 1800s to 1950, some black schools were models of academic achievement. Black students at Washington’s Dunbar High School often outscored white students as early as 1899. Schools such as Frederick Douglass (Baltimore), Booker T. Washington (Atlanta), P.S. 91 (Brooklyn), McDonogh 35 (New Orleans) and others operated at a similar level of excellence.

Self-destructive behavior that has become acceptable, particularly that in predominantly black schools, is nothing less than a gross betrayal of a struggle, paid with blood, sweat and tears by previous generations, to make possible today’s educational opportunities that are being routinely squandered. I guarantee that blacks who lived through that struggle and are no longer with us would not have believed such a betrayal possible.

Government should do its job of protecting constitutional rights. After that, black people should be simply left alone as opposed to being smothered by the paternalism inspired by white guilt. On that note, I just cannot resist the temptation to refer readers to my “Proclamation of Amnesty and Pardon,” which grants Americans of European ancestry amnesty and pardon for their own grievances and those of their forebears against my people so that they stop feeling guilty and stop acting like fools in their relationship with Americans of African ancestry.

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Three Ways Law Enforcement Must Be Reformed Right Now | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on June 11, 2020

https://mises.org/wire/three-ways-law-enforcement-must-be-reformed-right-now?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=8b216a96ca-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-8b216a96ca-228343965

I don’t know which acts of police abuse and brutality are motivated by racism and which are not. But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that we could end all racial bias immediately through some magic spell or button we could press. Would this end police abuse, or even most of it?

Experience tells us no. The data is clear that police abuse is not limited to any particular group. Indeed, a majority of those shot by police are white.

For example, when police officer Phillip Brailsford gunned down Daniel Shaver, it’s unlikely that he was motivated by some sort of ethnic or racial bias. The same was probably true when police shot Duncan Lemp in his sleep during a no-knock raid, or when police pinned Tony Timpa to the ground until he died. After Timpa died police joked about it, and apparently found the situation quite hilarious. This is not limited just to local police personnel. When federal agents massacred more than eighty (mostly white) men, women, and children at Waco, law enforcement officers probably weren’t motivated by the race of their victims, either.

Police also appear to have no aversion to being callously indifferent toward victims of all racial and ethnic backgrounds. When police elected to cower outside Stoneman Douglas High School rather than face the gunman slaughtering children inside, it’s unlikely that they paid much attention to the racial makeup of the student body (a majority of which was white.)

Unfortunately, anecdotes like these could be recalled for hours and hours.

“But nonwhites are more often targeted proportionally!,” some might say. This may be so, and indeed some may decide that turning police into equal-opportunity abusers is a type of progress in itself, but it hardly addresses the systemic foundations of police abuse.

And the underlying problems are substantial. They are systemic and built into the law enforcement community in the United States for several reasons.

First, police are protected from accountability both by laws granting them legal immunity and by police labor unions that shield abusers. Secondly, the proliferation of laws designed to target nonviolent people for petty offenses (most commonly drug offenses) provides police with nearly endless opportunities to stop and harass people who have committed no real crime.

Murray Rothbard has illustrated how the ideal in this situation would be a type of police privatization. But for those who are not yet ready for such a radical reform, much can be done in the meantime through more mild, yet very necessary, reforms.

One: End Legal Immunity for Police

At the core of the issue is a lack of accountability and legal liability on the part of government employees who enforce the laws. Thanks to activist progovernment judges and legislation designed to shield police, it is extremely difficult to hold abusive law enforcement agents accountable.

Chris Calton explains:

The doctrine of qualified immunity essentially says that for a police officer to be held accountable, there must be a statute specifying all the particularities of his or her unique situation. Anything even remotely ambiguous falls under the broad category of “discretion.” In theory, legal immunity is “qualified,” but in practice, it is effectively absolute.

This way of thinking, however, is only a few decades old. It was solidified in American law by activist Supreme Court judges in 1967. Their ruling essentially created new law which erected new barriers against holding police accountable for abusive behavior.

As ABC reported this week:

While the Civil Rights Act of 1871 gives Americans the unambiguous ability to sue public officials over civil rights violations, the Supreme Court has subsequently limited liability to only those rights that have become “clearly established law.”

Critics say the standard is near-impossible to meet.

“In order for a plaintiff to defeat qualified immunity, they have to find a prior case that has held unconstitutional an incident with virtually identical facts to the one the plaintiff is bringing,” said UCLA law professor Joanna Schwartz. “And over the last 15 years, the court has made it a more and more difficult standard for plaintiffs to overcome to go to trial.”

Last month, a Reuters report noted that “the doctrine has become a nearly failsafe tool to let police brutality go unpunished and deny victims their constitutional rights.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

AIPAC Finally Gets the Best of Ilhan Omar | The American Conservative

Posted by M. C. on May 7, 2020

This is what AIPAC wants. It sent out this letter and got 390 members of Congress to sign it, including Omar. The fact AIPAC was able to get these signatures is a testament to its influence and the hurt that it can bring down on politicians when comes to re-election. Like Omar.

That will ensure that the other embargoes, the ones that affect food, medicine, basic necessities, continue to strangle ordinary Iranians. This is about “maximum pressure” and it’s what AIPAC and the hawks in Congress want. In her own “narrow” way, Omar is supporting their vicious cycle, one that she has already admitted, will not work. 

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/state-of-the-union/aipac-finally-gets-the-best-of-ilhan-omar/

The Congresswoman has signed onto one of the lobby’s letters calling for an extended embargo on Iran.

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-MN. (Screenshot from Al Jazeera, via CBN)

It looks like AIPAC, the most influential pro-Israel organization in the U.S., has gotten to Rep Ilhan Omar.

The Muslim-American congresswoman who had been targeted by the lobbying behemoth a year ago for her “anti-Semitic” comments about “dual loyalty” in regards to members of Congress supporting a ban on American’s boycotting Israel businesses (BDS), has now signed onto a typically loaded AIPAC letter calling for the extension of a UN arms embargo against Iran.

The move has her supporters and political observers scratching their heads. The wider sanctions regime against Tehran, by all reports, was crushing the Iranian people long before the COVID virus began spreading through the country. Oil revenues, imports of basic necessities, all have been brought to a grinding halt thanks to the Trump Administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign. Now Iranians are struggling for life-saving equipment and medicines in the wake of a pandemic.

In a tweet on April 22 she seemed to be of the mind that sanctions are a dead end:

 

Omar’s office released a statement after the AIPAC letter story broke, saying  the congresswoman still opposes wider economic sanctions, but “has consistently, for a long time, supported arms embargoes against human rights abusers.” It is not that she “supports [Secretary of State Mike] Pompeo’s tactics or that her position on sanctions has changed, or that she is not in support of the [nuclear deal]. It was just a narrow ask that we couldn’t find anything wrong with.”

So what is this “narrow ask”? AIPAC, which has spent millions of dollars opposing the JCPOA, otherwise known as the “Iran nuclear deal,” wants to make sure a United Nations weapons embargo on Iran does not sunset as proscribed in the agreement, this fall. That will mean whatever is remaining of the deal since the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from it in 2018 will fall apart. That will likely trigger an escalation in the Iranians’ uranium enrichment, which was capped in the deal, and likewise lock all economic sanctions in, this time with the wider support of the other P5+1 countries that originally signed onto it (China, Russia, Germany, the European Union, the UK, and France).

This is what AIPAC wants. It sent out this letter and got 390 members of Congress to sign it, including Omar. The fact AIPAC was able to get these signatures is a testament to its influence and the hurt that it can bring down on politicians when comes to re-election. Like Omar. A tough Democratic primary candidate has emerged in Antone Melton-Meaux, an African-American attorney and civil rights mediator who said in an April op-edin the Minnesota Star-Tribune that Omar was disconnected from her district, has gotten no legislation passed for Minnesota, and  cut a divisive figure on Capitol Hill. Furthermore, Melton-Meaux said:

Omar has repeatedly made divisive statements that have been hurtful to members of our Jewish community. She creates distraction and drama, not results. That doesn’t work for us.

Rep. Omar believes that sanctions are economic warfare and is a vocal advocate for abolishing them, particularly for Iran. Yet she supports sanctions on Israel. She has repeatedly refused to explain this inconsistency. That doesn’t work for us.

Melton-Meaux is one of three primary challengers, but he has already raised nearly $500,000, more than any of them. He seems to have touched a nerve and is not afraid to use Omar’s reported issues with the pro-Israel crowd to his political advantage. According to a glowing profile in the Jewish Insider, Melton-Meaux already “has the endorsement of “pro-Israel America.” More:

In 2012, during a Jewish Community Relations Council meeting in Saint Paul, Minnesota, Melton-Meaux delivered a Dvar Torah, expounding on the connections between Leviticus 19 and Matthew 26, which calls for all people to “love thy neighbor as thyself.” He added: “If there was ever a time when Jews, Christians, and all people of faith need to be reminded that we share a common bond, the time is now.”

And:

Melton-Meaux alleges that his opponent, who has risen to prominence as a member of “The Squad,” has not worked to find common ground with others, including many of her Jewish constituents.

“Omar has made statements that have been reckless and harmful to the Jewish community,” Melton-Meaux told Jewish Insider. “I have spent time with the Jewish community and have met with Jewish leaders, and there’s a deep sense of betrayal by her actions and displeasure with the way that she has handled herself in the process with regard to the residents in this district.”

And according to Gateway Pundit, Omar’s top Republican opponent, Lacy Johnson, got a huge boost from donors this week after an endorsement from President Trump.

Omar has been accused of anti-Semitic comments, but a closer look of course reveals a muddier picture. In an all-consuming debate last year on whether banning U.S. companies and citizens from boycotting Israeli businesses for its treatment of Palestinians was an infringement of Constitutional rights, the tweets and public attacks on both sides were flying. Omar made comments about AIPAC “funding” Republican support for Israel and decried its influence operations (which are notorious by the way on Capitol Hill, described by one former Hill staffer and AIPAC as a system of “rewards and retribution”). After this, Omar  was accused by other members of Congress and by AIPAC of promulgating the trope that some Jewish-Americans have “dual loyalty,” and her words were condemned as anti-Semitic.

She ended up apologizing for a February 2019 tweet saying that support for Israel was “all about the Benjamins.”

“Anti-Semitism is real and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes,” Omar said in a statement released on Twitter, after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the entire Democratic leadership publicly scolded her for engaging in “deeply offensive” anti-Semitic tropes.

“My intention is never to offend my constituents or Jewish Americans as a whole,” Ms. Omar wrote, adding, “I unequivocally apologize.”

But she did not take back her comments about AIPAC.

Omar’s recent signature on a letter that would have garnered hundreds of her colleagues’ support and made a splash with or without her, is a signal to AIPAC that she knows her seat is at risk, and that she would rather neutralize the feud with the pro-Israel powerhouse than send it flocking to the aid of her opponents. AIPAC spends millions each year lobbying Congress on behalf of its agenda, but does not give directly to candidates. However, its members do, and it works with other pro-Israel groups and individuals who give tons of money each election cycle (more than $12.4 million so far in 2020, compared to $15.5 million in all of 2016). Omar’s comments about “the Benjamins” could come back to bite her, and it will be, all about the Benjamins. That’s how campaigns rise and fall.

So why should we care? Omar says it’s a “narrow ask” to support extending the arms embargo, but it’s clear the Trump Administration is using this embargo to further kill the deal. If the deal is crushed, the hardliners in Iran will blow through uranium enrichment restrictions (in fact they already have, in response to U.S. sanctions). That will ensure that the other embargoes, the ones that affect food, medicine, basic necessities, continue to strangle ordinary Iranians. This is about “maximum pressure” and it’s what AIPAC and the hawks in Congress want. In her own “narrow” way, Omar is supporting their vicious cycle, one that she has already admitted, will not work.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

There Are no Such Things as Constitutional Rights – garydbarnett.com

Posted by M. C. on April 21, 2020

We are born with rights and we die with rights, whether any piece of
paper exists or not. If rights are claimed to exist because of a
constitution , no rights exist at all. The tyranny we face today is
because of the Constitution, not in spite of it.

https://www.garydbarnett.com/there-are-no-such-things-as-constitutional-rights/

By: Gary D. Barnett

A man’s natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime, whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber, (or by any other name indicating his true character,) or by millions, calling themselves a government.”

Lysander Spooner (1867). “No Treason: No. 1-”, p.7

In the midst of this fraudulent pandemic, there has been a renewed call to look to the Constitution for answers. This is a smoke and mirrors solution that does not address the real problem. Constitutional rights do not exist, and if they did, those so-called rights would be worthless. Rights cannot be written into law or claimed due to a political document because they would have no merit.

The rights of man are natural, and all rights stem from the single factor of life itself, for if man has a right to life, all other natural rights are inherent as well. A right to life means that one has a right to defend his life. It means that one has a right to support and sustain his life. This means he has a right to property, the highest form of property being self. It means he has a right to move about freely, to work, to protect others, to speak and congregate in order to protect and defend life. All individual and natural rights are inherent due to humanity, not to any other men or documents drafted by men.

This seems simple enough, but Americans seem to clamor for direction and approval by those that wish to rule over them. Instead of accepting that a right to life is natural, and cannot be bestowed by men, people seek approval by some authoritarian class for clarity concerning the legitimacy of something so obvious. This in and of itself destroys the very core of common rights, because having to put into contract or law the guidelines for what is natural is the acceptance that rights do not exist unless sanctioned by a higher body. This is asinine, and the notion of a constitution to spell out what is inherent weakens any position of strength of the individual.

Some have forgotten, and most have no understanding of the history of the Constitutional Convention. This was a coup completed by Hamilton and his followers to create a strong central governing system, where most all power was given to a federal or national government instead of to the individual and the states. Those attending the convention had claimed their task as only to alter and improve the Articles of Confederation, not to scrap the current Constitution of the United States. But there was never any intention of improving upon the current “law of the land,” but only to set up a new federal state with unlimited power. Keep in mind that the Articles of Confederation did not allow for a president, did not allow the federal government any power whatsoever to tax, so it was extremely restrictive of any executive or federal power whatsoever.

So if freedom were desired, why then would a new constitution that gave immense powers to the federal government over states and individuals be so revered by those calling themselves Constitutionalists? Why do any that have read Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the power’s clauses, claim that this document was ever meant to protect the rights of man? How is an unlimited power to tax, to control all commerce, foreign and domestic, to coin and control all money, to provide for the general welfare, to borrow money on the credit of the United States, to declare and prosecute war, to raise and support militaries, and to make all laws necessary to enforce all these powers and more?

The Constitution is a contradiction at every level, as granting these unlimited powers to the federal nationstate, and then at the same time claiming to protect the freedom of the the individual, is not possible. Every single power “granted” in this horrendous document negates any protection of liberty.

So why is this document that was long plotted through conspiracy, that was secretly written and accepted behind locked and closed doors in the dark of night, that erased all protections of liberty then in place in the Articles of Confederation, and that was signed by politicians, many of whom gained much more power in government after its implementation, so revered? Selling the Constitution in the late 18th century was in effect not much different than selling total tyranny over a fake pandemic today.

If the Constitution was meant to protect individual rights and the freedom of Americans, why are the masses of this population being forced into poverty, loneliness, isolation, quarantine and self-imprisonment? Why are medical martial law and martial law being carried out? Why have the businesses of Americans been forcibly closed down? Why have Americans been forced to avoid contact with all others? Why is mass surveillance of everyone the new normal, and constant threats by government of forced vaccination and mandated behavior in place? Why does anyone think this is a free country due the the totalitarian powers authorized in the United States Constitution?

Lysander Spooner explained this perfectly when he said:

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it, In either case, it is unfit to exsist.”

Lysander Spooner (1971). “The collected works of Lysander Spooner”

The Constitution is used, administered, and defined by government, it is interpreted by the Supreme Court, which is made up of nine judges appointed for life also by government. In other words, it is simply a political tool of government used and interpreted to give power to the state, not to its people. It was only intended to fool the people into believing that they had freedom and power only due to a piece of paper drafted by politicians. It is worthless and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the natural rights of man, but in fact is detrimental to liberty because of the assumption that only government can define individual rights through parchment secretly drafted in the dark of night 233 years ago.

We are born with rights and we die with rights, whether any piece of paper exists or not. If rights are claimed to exist because of a constitution , no rights exist at all. The tyranny we face today is because of the Constitution, not in spite of it.

As to the Constitution:

It was a bloodless coup d’état against an unresisting Confederation Congress….The drive was managed by a corps of brilliant members and representatives of the financial and landed oligarchy. These wealthy merchants and large landowners were joined by the urban artisans of the large cities in their drive to create a strong overriding central government – a supreme government with its own absolute power to tax, regulate commerce, and raise armies.”

~ Murray N. Rothbard–Conceived in LibertyVol. 5, [306]

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

No One is Immune to Police Misconduct…Including Retired Police!

Posted by M. C. on December 10, 2019

I believe he was setting me up for a false arrest!

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/12/no_author/no-one-is-immune-to-police-misconductincluding-retired-police/

By Joseph Guida

I am a Retired New York City Police Detective. Along with my Business partner, John J. Baeza, we started a police procedures expert witness practice in which we review alleged police misconduct cases. Little did I know I might need John’s expertise with an incident between me and a NY Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) police officer.

It was Tuesday, November 26th, 2019 at about 6:00 PM. I was waiting to pick up my daughter at the Mineola Long Island Station (I live in Nassau County, New York). I was sitting in my car, parked legally, engine turned off and looking down at my phone checking to see where my daughter was on the train. When all of a sudden I looked to my left and saw a cop standing next to me on the driver side. I lowered my window and said, “can I help you officer?” To which he replied ”are you alright”? I then replied ”yes”, then asked him why he was asking me that! He then proceeded to tell me he observed me slumped over the steering wheel with my eyes closed. This was totally false. Why he would make up such a story was beyond me. After going back and forth with his line of questions, he wanted me to figure out why he was asking these kinds of questions. He asked me if I was a cop because he noticed my F.O.P. plates (Fraternal Order of Police). I confirmed that I was a retired police officer. When I told him I had no idea was he was asking me these questions, it dawned on me he either thought I was intoxicated or I was on drugs. Once I shot down that line of questioning, he gave up and now told me the way my car was parked was dangerous and I could get rear ended. I told him I’ve parked in this legal spot, seated in my car, while picking up my wife or daughter without any problems. After this he walked away angry and upset.

I believe he was setting me up for a false arrest! If he would have asked me for identification I would have refused to give it to him. If he had tried to administer an alcohol breathalyzer test, I would have also refused that too! Now some people would say, if you’re not intoxicated or high on drugs, why not take the test? Several reasons not to: 1. He had no probable cause to administrate such a test since his observations were false, and 2. He was violating my civil and constitutional rights! I also believe being a retired police officer was the only thing that stopped him from trying to arrest me. I do not believe the average citizen would have been so fortunate. One of the many problems within police departments throughout America is police officers like this one in this encounter. And part of the reason they can get away with this unlawful behavior is because the police department allows it! They are rarely disciplined, arrested, or prosecuted. I was willing to let this railroad cop arrest me on a false charge, and go through everything I needed to go through to prove everything he did to me was illegal!!! What I’m telling you is to stand up for your rights. These cops act and think like the Nazi Gestapo putting one boot on your neck and expecting you to follow any and all orders they give.  It doesn’t matter if those orders are lawful. And don’t try to talk back or question them. It comes down to the old saying, “show me your papers!” And if it can happen to me, a retired cop, it is certainly happening to thousands of other citizens every day. John had been telling me this for some time but I just shrugged it off.  Not anymore! It had to actually happen to me to now believe we must fight back! I am reminded of the Martin Niemoller quote:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew. 


Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.


Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.


Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

I am going to speak out for myself and I hope you do as well.  To get a good start read James Duane’s book “You Have the Right to Remain Innocent.” James also has a very good YouTube Video “Don’t Talk to the Police.” John Rutherford does excellent work in defense of our rights at The Rutherford Institute. Read this great Butler Shaffer article on the U.S. Police State.

Let us all fight back!

Be seeing you

image_511

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Liberty Has Lost Its Protection – PaulCraigRoberts.org

Posted by M. C. on June 29, 2019

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/06/28/liberty-has-lost-its-protection/

Paul Craig Roberts

July 4 should be a day of mourning.  The rights our ancestors fought for have been taken away.

Over the course of my lifetime there has been a fundamental shift in the attitude of the judiciary toward Constitutional rights.  I remember when guarding against any diminishing of constitutional rights was considered more important than convicting another criminal. There were cases in which the evidence needed in order to convict a person could not be collected, or used if collected, because it violated constitutional rights.  There are many instances of criminals walking free because police, prosecutors, and trials violated their rights.  Much of the unthinking public would be enraged, because judges let a criminal off.  The public were unable to understand that the judges were protecting their rights as well as the criminal’s.

This is an age old problem.  In Robert Bolt’s play, A Man for All Seasons, Sir Thomas More, Chancellor of England, is criticized for refusing to bend the law in order to better pursue criminals. Sir Thomas asks his critic, if I cut down the law in order to pursue devils, what happens to the innocent when authority turns on them?  This question formerly had a powerful presence in the courtroom.

Over the course of my lifetime, the emphasis shifted from protecting constitutional rights to seeing them as obstacles to law enforcement. In order to convict a single individual or class of individuals, precedents were established that set aside constitutional rights that protected everyone.  The judiciary began stripping away constitutional protections of the entire population in order that one more guilty person could be more easily convicted…

Hardly anyone wants a criminal to go free, but sometimes letting criminals go is the only way to protect our constitutional rights.  Formerly, it was clearly understood that protecting liberty was more important than punishing every criminal.  Almost every day John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute provides another example of our disappearing rights. See for example: https://mailchi.mp/rutherford/us-supreme-court-rules-that-police-can-forcibly-warrantlessly-carry-out-blood-draws-on-unconscious-drivers?e=c5472441ea

Courts have used endless exceptions and special circumstances to chop down the protections provided by the Bill of Rights.  I would wager that most Americans see no problem in the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling upholding the conviction of drunk driving in the case Whitehead discusses.  Indeed, if they knew about the case, they would be fulminating against the 4 justices who rose to the defense of the 4th Amendment as “liberal judges who want to turn criminals lose on society.”

Sir Thomas More’s warning in A Man of All Seasons has gone unheeded. Today the principle purpose of the US criminal justice (sic) system is to cut down our rights in order to secure convictions.  The practice has been so corrupting that today the US government routinely violates law, both its own and international, in pursuit of material interests.

The America that is romanticized in 4th of July celebrations no longer exists.

Be seeing you

2 out of every 3 Americans lost Fourth Amendment ...

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Trump official John Bolton declares International Criminal Court ‘dangerous’ and ‘dead to’ America

Posted by M. C. on September 10, 2018

Mr Bolton repeatedly hit out at the global body of which 123 countries are part, asking: “Would you consign the fate of American citizens to a committee of other nations [and] entities that aren’t even states like the Palestinian authority?”

I don’t care much for warmonger Bolton but on this issue he is right on.

Do we really want some ICC court representatives from say…Tajikistan or Myanmar coming to the US and arresting US citizens? That philosophy is the whole point of the ICC.

The ICC, like the Paris Accords, is meant to be a ball and chain on developed nations particularly US. Half the UN, particularly under a Trump administration, would like nothing more than to come here and haul people it doesn’t like off to UN jail.

The only ones safe would be like minded people control advocates such as the Clintons.

The UN is no friend to the US Constitution. Which allows us to digress back to the Clintons.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/icc-us-john-bolton-international-criminal-court-national-security-advisor-donald-trump-a8531701.html

National Security Advisor to Donald TrumpJohn Bolton, has said the International Criminal Court (ICC) is “dead to us” in his latest speech.

He labelled the court as “illegitimate” and “for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us”.

Mr Bolton, who has long held an unfavourable view of the court,  was speaking at a meeting of the Federalist Society, a conservative group based in Washington DC, said the ICC was “ineffective, unaccountable, and indeed outright dangerous”… Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

You Have the Right To Remain Innocent – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on March 28, 2018

This is from a review on Amazon.com of:

You Have the Right to Remain Innocent

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/03/no_author/you-have-the-right-to-remain-innocent/

By Arsee in AL

Ever wonder why every cop that is accused of something and investigated is suddenly unavailable for comment and is immediately assigned an attorney who has the same, universal reply to the curious public, “We have no comment at this time”. And all while their co-workers are out there using all the power of education, training, and intimidation, along with every dirty trick in the book, to persuade everyone else to spill their guts immediately? Read this book to find out the entire, interesting truth. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

My scumbag Senators Casey and Toomey voted for SB 1867

Posted by M. C. on December 4, 2011

Senate Bill 1867 has passed the Senate.  This bill permits anyone in the world, particularly US citizens living in the US, to be arrested indefinitely, without warrant, with a court hearing, indeed without any recourse, if the President and his gang-members deem them a terrorist.  There need be no evidence of guilt just like those in Guantanamo.  Constitutional rights are a thing of the past.  My pathetic, scumbag Senators Casey and Toomey voted for this.  Read more about SB 1867 and why we should rebel against the totalitarian state here.  Don’t be one of the sheeple.

Posted in Fascism | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »