rule of law

Anti Ron Paul Neocon, Richard Deekbag Wants His Junk Checked For Wikileaks

December 4th, 2010 1:05 am  |  by  |  Published in Big Government, Blowback, Civil Liberties, Commentary, Constitution, Foreign Policy, Humor, Maven Commentary, Neo-con, privacy, Ron Paul, rule of law, terrorism  |  12 Responses

Editor’s Note: After a long hiatus, we’ve just received another article submission from Richard Deekbag. His previous submission was posted here in an effort to represent a perspective opposite of Liberty Maven’s typical material. You can read that previous article, Why Ron Paul is wrong on every damn thing!, here. This new submission is being posted for the same reason. Remember, he’s an anti-Ron Paul neocon who runs the following website (we apologize for the length of the URL):

http://ohmygodronpaulwilleatallofourbabiesandourbabiesbabiesandtheirbabiesbabiesuntiltherearenobabiesleft.com/

————————–

By Richard Deekbag

What a joke! All these idiots complaining about their junk being touched by the TSA. I say we should just stand there and take it like real men. I say, “If it’s for national security then TOUCH MY JUNK, PLEASE!!” It’s the patriotic thing to do. If you opt-out of the junk-touching then the terrorists win, pure and simple. If you opt-out of the junk-touching then you hate America!!

I do think there is room for the TSA to improve this process though. It appears that all females get to be felt up by female TSA agents and all males get to be fondled by male TSA agents. This is a discriminatory practice. The TSA should ask the traveler if he or she is a homosexual. If the answer is affirmative then the traveler should be appropriately touched by a member of the opposite sex.

Yes, all touching in the name of national security is appropriate. Other than that small change I applaud the great work of the TSA over the past few weeks. The skies are infinitely safer and there can be no one who says they aren’t friendlier with this policy in place. In fact, they just published a children’s book to help children adapt to the new policy. Here’s is the cover:

Read More »

How to Cook a Frog – A Short History of Airport (in)Security

November 18th, 2010 10:22 pm  |  by  |  Published in Civil Liberties, Commentary, Liberty, privacy, rule of law, terrorism  |  1

By Craig Hensler

They say, “To cook a frog, don’t toss it into boiling water, put it into cool water and turn the heat up slowly”.

Our government would tell us that for the right (they call it a privilege) to fly on a commercial flight, we must submit either to a dose of radiation and provide a naked rendering of our body or submit to a government groping. . . or both. Either option, would be considered a crime if committed without a claimed “government authority”. The history of airline/airport security for the past forty years clearly shows that security is not the goal

Although airline hijackings have existed since, at least, the 1930′s, they didn’t “come into vogue” until the 1960′s with demands from hijackers to be taken to Cuba or some other political venue or for the payment of a ransom. This changed in 1970 when three airliners were hijacked by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The aircraft were forced to fly to Jordan where the passengers were ultimately released and the aircraft were destroyed. Today, this would be classified as a major “terrorist” event. In reality, they were political hijackings, which occurred only because they were allowed to occur. In 1970, as today, the existing security measures did not address the problem nor were they meant to correct the problem. At best, they were (and are) all theater meant to provide a sense of security.

Each of these hijackings could have been prevented – at minimal cost, without government involvement and without the sacrifice of personal liberties. Simple: lock and reinforce the cockpit door. Although, we’ve all been herded through metal detectors, emptied our pockets and had our bags x-rayed, nobody thought to “lock the door” for more than thirty years; until after 9/11.

Read More »

California vs. Holder, and the coming drug war battle

October 16th, 2010 10:22 pm  |  by  |  Published in Big Government, Civil Liberties, Commentary, Constitution, Drugs, Individual Responsibility, Liberty, Maven Commentary, rule of law, states rights  |  3 Responses

First, some background. Proposition 19 in the State of California would “allow Californians age 21 and older to grow up to 25 square feet of marijuana and possess up to an ounce. It also allows cities and counties to authorize cultivation and sales, and to tax them.”

Eric Holder sent a letter to some former DEA administrator’s who have urged the Justice Department to oppose Proposition 19. In it he wrote:

“Let me state clearly that the Department of Justice strongly opposes Proposition 19. If passed, this legislation will greatly complicate federal drug enforcement efforts to the detriment of our citizens.”

So does this mean that Obama’s justice department will begin enforcing federal drug laws once again in California? Yes, it appears it does.

This goes right back to the nullification debate. Do states have the right to nullify unconstitutional federal laws? Given this news it appears that Obama’s justice department’s Constitution goes right from Amendment 9 to Amendment 11.

It appears that a certain California Sheriff has a similar version of the Constitution:

Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, who is a co-chairman of the main opposition committee, released the letter at a news conference at his headquarters Friday, flanked by two former DEA heads, the district attorney and the Los Angeles city attorney.

“He is saying it is an unenforceable law and the federal government will not allow California to become a rogue state on this issue,” Baca said. “You can’t make a law in contradiction to federal law as a state. Therefore Proposition 19 is null and void and dead on arrival.”

Wow. Baca’s ignorance would be astounding if it wasn’t for Obama through Holder saying basically the same thing. This directly contradicts our Founders. Obama is King and anyone who disagrees with him are peasants or worse, racists. I suppose we can thank Abraham Lincoln for this.

The America we live in is one where the National Government can nullify state laws and “F%*@ the Founders” sing the Statists.

Ron Paul’s H.R.4995 and Obama’s move from “Yes, We Can!” to “Yes, You Will!”

July 2nd, 2010 12:57 am  |  by  |  Published in Activism, Big Government, Civil Liberties, Commentary, Constitution, Court Cases, Foreign Policy, Free Market, Health Care, Individual Responsibility, Liberty, Market Regulation, Maven Commentary, Politics, Ron Paul, rule of law, Socialism  |  2 Responses

Obama campaigned on “Yes, We can!”, but he’s governing on “Yes, You Will.”

He’s so similar to George W. Bush, and in some cases worse (drone bombing fetish?), on foreign policy that I expect to hear him start mis-pronouncing the word “nuclear” any day now.

He, like his fellow progressives, believes government is the solution to all the problems of the world. Will it take someone hurling a shoe at him to wake him up to the fact that the government doesn’t have such a great track record when it comes to solutions? That probably wouldn’t work. He’d just accuse the shoe-thrower of being a Right-wing extremist and/or a Tea Party racist and/or a domestic terrorist and/or a misguided soul who has been brain-washed by “my opponents” to believe that government is the problem.

Then he may calm down a bit and suggest that perhaps he just needs to explain things better so the stupid peasants that live around his DC castle and beyond understand that the proper role of government is to be involved in every aspect of their lives.

For instance, let’s investigate the health welfare individual mandate.

Read More »

More Unsung Iraq War Heroes

April 21st, 2010 7:00 am  |  by  |  Published in Blowback, Civil Liberties, Commentary, Foreign Policy, Individual Responsibility, Liberty, Maven Commentary, Ron Paul, rule of law, War  |  0

You may recall my post discussing the recently released Wikileaks video that shows the American military might in all of it’s brash non-glory [Watch it]. Well, it appears there were at least two true heroes-in-waiting there that day.

From a recent press release:

Two former soldiers from the Army unit responsible for the Wikileaks “Collateral Murder” incident have written an open-letter of “Reconciliation and Responsibility” to those injured in the July 2007 attack, in which U.S. forces wounded two children and killed over a dozen people, including the father of those children and two Reuters employees.

Ethan Mccord and Josh Stieber deployed to Baghdad with Bravo Company 2-16 in 2007. Ethan was on the ground at the scene of the shooting, and is seen on the video rushing one of the injured children to a U.S. Vehicle; “When I saw those kids, all I could picture was my kids back home”. Ethan applied for mental health support following this incident and was denied by his commanding officer.

Josh Stieber was not at the scene of the shooting but says similar incidents happened throughout his 14-month tour; “The acts depicted in this video are everyday occurrences of this war.”
 Josh states that these casualties demonstrate the impact of U.S. military policy on both the civilians and the soldiers on the ground. [Read the rest here]

You can read their letter at http://www.lettertoiraq.com/.

Why is this not front page news in every media outlet in America?

This letter reminds me of a video I put together during Ron Paul’s Presidential campaign of 2008 called “Troops Are Human”. I utilized a song by CC Carter called “Letter from Iraq”. You can watch it below.

The Guantanamo Problem – Part 1

January 19th, 2010 10:04 pm  |  by  |  Published in Civil Liberties, Commentary, crime, Foreign Policy, Liberty, Philosophy, Politics, rule of law, terrorism, War  |  0

Originally published January 19, 2010 at http://towneforcongress.com/economy/the-guantanamo-problem-part-1-1

This short series will address the War on Terror. While my stances on both the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars are very clear, I have not yet formally written on Guantanamo Bay and its prisoners, offered practical solutions to improve our border and airline safety, and commented in depth on our foreign policy and terrorism abroad. In this part, I will explain the history of ‘Gitmo’ for knowing its history is key to understanding what should be done with this military base. Next I will dissect a recent editorial published in the local newspaper by the incumbent Congressman and then propose my solutions on how to handle Guantanamo Bay prisoners. Following this, no current discussion on terror would be complete without discussing the controversial body scanning and I will add my comments and solutions on airline safety. The last part will summarize just how dangerous the war on terror is – not only to our soldiers who risk their lives everyday and avoiding financial ruin as a country, but also to our liberties as a free society.

Readers should be aware that the incumbent in my congressional race sits on Homeland Security and is a rabid supporter of the Bush and Obama administrations’ War on Terror. While I do not question his motives to protect the American people, I do very much oppose his actions and ineffective solutions. Our country’s leaders have not only plunged our nation into expensive, preemptive, and unjust wars for the past decade, but have embarked on a vast extension of a modern-day police state. It is the duty of every citizen to question whether these new restraints over our lives are, in fact, beneficial. I view the infringement of civil liberties that are protected by our Constitution as not only illegal but unnecessary and immoral.

Read More »

DownsizeDC.org: We want to speak truth to the Supreme Court

November 6th, 2009 11:19 am  |  by  |  Published in Big Government, crime, History, Liberty, Politics, rule of law  |  0

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h


We need your help to join an amicus brief to the Supreme Court arguing that the right to keep and bear arms is not only a right to self-defense against criminals, but also against tyrannical government.

If you want the Supreme Court to hear this argument please make a tax-deductible contribution for this purpose to the Downsize DC Foundation.

Why this is important

Statism is the belief that politicians and bureaucrats should have broad powers to use force against citizens. In its most virulent forms Statism killed more people in the 20th Century alone than all of the individual non-governmental murderers in the history of the world, COMBINED!

Professor R.J. Rummel estimates the total murderous death-toll of Statism at about 170 million people!

Not even the Black Death of the Middle Ages, or the Flu epidemic of 1918, can approach these numbers, even if you combine the totals from those two epidemics and reduce the estimate for the total number of murders committed by governments.

But the terrible statistics for Statist murder still only tell part of the story. We must add to them the statistics for the mass theft, imprisonment, and torture committed by governments against innocent people. These measurements of State criminality are even more vast, so much so that they are literally incalculable.

The State, and the belief-system that fosters its criminality — Statism — are the great scourges of human existence, against which no other source of death and destruction can remotely compare.

Of course, in reaction to all of these blood-curdling facts the fool argues that such things could never happen in this country. The same foolish belief was held by people in Russia, Germany, China, Cambodia, and a hundred other places, before such things DID happen in those countries. But such naivety is also exposed by one other crucial fact . . .

Murderous and violent crimes by the State have already been committed by our government, on a massive scale. A partial list would include . . .
Read More »

Republicans wrong. The real reason Deeds and Corzine lost: The Underdog Theory

November 5th, 2009 8:00 am  |  by  |  Published in Activism, Commentary, Constitution, Election, Liberty, Maven Commentary, Peter Schiff, Politics, Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul Republicans, rule of law  |  6 Responses

Republicans displaying their “Red State pride” following the results of Tuesday’s elections need to face reality. The two GOP gubernatorial election victories in Virginia and New Jersey were unsurprising and expected. Now if a true limited government conservative beat out Bloomberg in the New York mayoral race there would be a reason for celebration.

The reason Bob McDonnell beat out Creigh Deeds in Virginia was not because McDonnell represents some new style small government Republican. McDonnell won because Deeds made campaign mistakes. McDonnell made none. Deeds lost the race more than McDonnell won it.

The same is true for the New Jersey race. Corzine, a former chairman at Goldman Sachs, easily became a scapegoat for a failing economy and political corruption. So, he lost.

What Tuesday’s election results really demonstrated was a lack of conviction for either Democrats or Republicans. When the political spectrum shines red, then blue, then red, then blue, over and over again something tangible comes to light:

America is not rooting for either party to win. America is rooting for the underdog.

Read More »

Citizens Rising in Defense of the Constitution

October 12th, 2009 4:50 pm  |  by  |  Published in Activism, Constitution, Liberty, rule of law  |  3 Responses

Editor’s Note: This item comes to us from Ryan McCain of CC2009. Any organization or event that promotes enforcing the rule of law inherent in the U.S. Constitution is more than worthy of our time.

Citizens fed up with constitutional violations causing devastation to the economy and the Nation, are stepping up to join constitutional activist Robert L. Schulz, Chairman of We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, to prepare for a modern-day Continental Congress to take place November 8-22, 2009 at the Pheasant Run Conference Center in St. Charles, Illinois.  Continental Congress 2009 is not political or partisan and seeks to defend, not amend, the current Constitution.

Billed as the “next appropriate step for the free people of America,” planners hope the historic national assembly will inspire the critical mass necessary to restore constitutional governance. 153 citizen-nominated-and-elected Delegates – three from each state and Washington, D.C. — will convene for two weeks to methodically and factually document constitutional abuses which have taken place over many years, across many administrations, every branch of government and both parties.   Delegates will consider specific non-violent, legal civic actions to stop the wrongs.

To help finance the historic event a .999 pure silver CC2009 commemorative round will be given for each donation of $100.00 or more. Planners are also seeking bigger donors they are calling the “patriotic, brave and wealthy” who “understand what Continental Congress can do for America.” Furthermore, a money bomb is also in the works.

Read More »

“Read the Bills Act” creators urge Congress to pass a “worthless” rule

October 2nd, 2009 10:22 am  |  by  |  Published in Big Government, congress, Constitution, DownsizeDC.org, law, Liberty, Politics, rule of law  |  0

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Subject: Our first press release to the national media

Your work has made “reading the bills” a national issue. You accomplished this with zero help from the media. Now Congress and other groups are piggy-backing on your work, attempting to steal both your steam and your thunder, pushing non-reforms like H. Res. 554. Do you . . .

* Want to stake a claim to the results of your work and the need for the real “Read the Bills Act?”
* Let the media know what the “real deal” is

If so, here’s what we want to send to the national media early next week . . .


The creator’s of the Read the Bills Act, which inspired a movement, say that a proposed 72-hour rule, permitting the public to see legislation before Congress votes, is “worthless.” But they want the rule, H.R. 554, passed anyway. Why?

“It will pave the way for our Read the Bills Act,” declared Jim Babka, President of DownsizeDC.org.

DownsizeDC.org created its “Read the Bills Act” (RTBA) in 2005. Constituents have bombarded their representatives in Congress with a quarter-million letters supporting RTBA. Babka has also presented it to beltway groups.

“Public pressure and my presentations are what led the Republicans to pick-up ‘reading the bills’ as a talking point. But when the people witness how worthless their approach is, demands to pass our RTBA will increase.”

The 72-hour rule makes cosmetic changes to House rules.

House members are supposed to receive readable copies of bills three days before a vote. The rule is rarely followed.

The rule changes that time requirement from 3 days to… 72 hours.

It also requires that the public gets the bill at the same time. Babka likes this real change, however…

“It’s only a rule; not a law. So it can be waived in many instances, and doesn’t apply in others. There’s no enforcement mechanism to penalize Congress when they violate their rules. And three days isn’t nearly enough time to read the monster-sized bills Congress routinely passes.”

DownsizeDC.org’s ‘Read the Bills Act’ can’t be waived and requires Congress to…

* Read the entire bill out-loud before a quorum
* Post all bills on the Internet for seven days before voting

If ignorance of the law is no defense for citizens, such ignorance must not be permitted to Congress. That’s why RTBA also provides citizens with a solid legal defense against laws passed in violation of these requirements. Babka concluded:
Read More »