I am prevelant on Facebook, which proves I really have no life. Actually I am very active in other things. One of those things is studying the Constitution of the United States, Bill of Rights and the true history of the United States. I mention this only because these two things have recently connected.

While purusing Facebook, I cam across this graphic.

The real job before us is not cleaning up the mess Obama created. The real one is cleaning the mess that created Obama.
Truer words were never spoken and, quite frankly, I can say the same about Trump. Only time will tell about the Trump legacy, but he would not have been my first choice. He was the only choice of the choices given, however. Yes, I voted for him and would do the same under similar circumstances.

The mess that created Obama is voter fraud. The fraud was prevelant, clearly evidenced and in your face. That is because the Republicans got into a court battle and promised not to say anything about voter fraud because they were being meanies. So I shall pinpoint the problems that caused this “mess.” In this article I will cover political labels that may hurt your feelings.

The main problem is that almost everyone allows others to think for them. They do not catch on when even Fox news is laughing in their face.

LABELS

When the term “Deplorables” was recently used against Trump supporters, they responded in an amazingly quick and devious manner. They took on the new name with pride and waved it like a flag. Even to the point of attempting to get a new U.S. Navy ship named “The Deplorables.” Unlike the progressives when called snowflakes.

I thought it interesting because the “liberals,” as you call them, are not liberal at all. They have stuck it to you with that label since the 1960s. The left-wing Wikipedia actually makes a distinction between the so-called liberalism of today with what they call “Classic liberalism.” The difference?

Classic liberals are those who believe in freedom. The free market economy. Natural rights. The left-wing Wikipedia uses the term “civil rights” instead of natural rights. They do not even want you to have that term in your lexicon because natural rights are those that the God of the Holy Bible gave you. What you might call instinct. For example you know you have the right to kill someone who is trying to kill you. In fact the “classic liberal” John Locke calls this war. War is just not for the elites to play. John Locke goes so far as to say that if a person comes on your property with the intent to do you harm, he has committed an act of war. An act of war which you may prosecute to its logical conclusion; whether that be a peace treaty or the elimination of your enemy. The point being that you have the natural right to choose your own destiny.

The caveat, of course, is that you cannot interfere with the rights of another in their pursuits, so long as those pursuits are legal. You can build a three-story house even if that house blocks your neighbors view of Mount Shasta. You CANNOT, however, dump toxic chemicals and waste in a waterway which runs through the property of others who might use that water, nor can you dam it up to prevent the flow.

The so-called “liberals” of today are properly called “progressives.” That is the term which Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt used to describe their methods of circumventing the Constitution of the United States of America.

ARE YOU WAVING THE RED FLAG?

The same system of labels applies during every election. The Republicans eagerly await the posting of red colored States across the map without even realizing what they are doing. They wave red flags and post on sites called “Redstate” and wear red shirts when they should ONLY wear a red shirt on Friday for Remember Everyone Deployed (RED) Friday.

Does anyone remember what a red flag represents? There are two States in the world with red flags. Communist Russia and Communist China. Even the word Communist is incorrect for these States because they do not practice Communism as outlined by Friedrich Engels. You might not know that name, but he did most of the work accredited to Karl Marx. That’s okay though. Engels was a good communist and let Marx take the credit. What current communist governments should be called are tyrannical. That is the term used by the so-called founding fathers.

What the left-wing media has done is to get well-meaning Republicans to cheer the spread of Communism across the United States. And to cheer their own demise. Remember the old phrase, “Better dead than red?”

If we were to actually have a truth in labeling law, why would the red States not represent the Democrats since they represent tyranny? Why are they given the color of the “true blue” American? And if FOX news is the “conservative” alternative, why are they doing the exact same thing?

I am writing this article as a bit of therapy. I will not include dates or details of the trial at hand, because they are not within the scope of this article. This is about my embarrassment as a potential juror. Hopefully this will assist you in the future.

I was called to jury duty, but was unfamiliar with the process. I was upset about the way the summons was issued because I was not even informed that I was in a period when I could be called. I will say that the court staff was extremely kind and understanding. That settled me quite a bit.

As potential jurors were dismissed, I eventually wound up in the jury pool. I had several problems. I provide health care assistance for another person and their family. I do not have transportation. Yes, in this day and age, I can afford neither a vehicle nor the insurance to cover it. Much less the gas.

I was offered a hotel room and was okay with that. As a reporter I was not sure if I reported on this particular case, but I found out I did not. So that was okay. I had to arrange for a care taker for my friend, however. The judge was kind enough to grant a short recess to arrange for a possible replacement. The transportation to get to the court house (about 35 miles away) was borrowed. I had to return it because it was used to transport my friend. Yet, if selected, I would not have that opportunity. One thing after another conspired against me.

As I was speaking—with the bailiff watching—I realized that I had no place to keep my dog. This fact was insurmountable. My dog would only stay with one other person for any length of time with comfort. That person was out of my life.

I believe that the bailiff saw the stress was just too much for me and informed the judge who eventually excused me.

You might be thinking Good job. You got out of jury duty. I see web sites with braggarts about their ducking their Constitutional responsibility.

You might also find it curious to find that I wanted jury duty. You see, I am a veteran. Over 17-years of my life was spent protecting and defending the very right to trial by a jury of my peers. To defend a person against unconstitutional incarceration—To prevent a person from being railroaded into jail—would be the epitome of my service in the Navy. Of course if guilty, getting a criminal off of the streets would also be important to me.

I am the guy Janet Napalitano warned you about. I am a veteran with a copy of the Constitution (usually) who knows how to use it. As Thomas Jefferson wrote to Thomas Paine in 1789:

I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

You may not be able to pick up a gun and kill an enemy. You may not be able to spend days on end under the sea. Not everyone can bring themselves to go into battle. Jury duty, however, is one area in which you can serve your country and preserve the Constitution without having to duck.

WHY IS TRIAL BY JURY IMPORTANT?

Imagine you come home from the graveyard shift. You are tired and you feel it is all right to leave the windows of your car open because you have another job to go to tomorrow and the summer days heat up quick. You hope that the interior of your car might just be cooler in the morning. You crawl off to bed for a restful night sleep.

At about 5 a.m., you are wakened by an incessant knocking at your door. You open it to find two police officers at your door. They inform you that there was a robbery and the alleged firearm was found in your backseat.

Who would you want as a juror? Someone who wants to serve? Or someone who is there simply because they could not come up with the right excuse?

At this point I would encourage you to find the movie Twelve Angry Men and watch it. Or read the play. [1] It is not only an entertaining film, but watch it for the lesson of what might transpire in the jury deliberation room.

Benjamin Franklin is oft quoted as writing: [2]

That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved.

The “Maxim” was derived from an earlier quote by Voltaire:

that ’tis much more Prudence to acquit two Persons, tho’ actually guilty, than to pass Sentence of Condemnation on one that is virtuous and innocent.

In Commentaries on the Laws of England 9th ed., book 4, chapter 27, p. 358 (1783, reprinted 1978), Sir William Blackstone wrote:

“For the law holds, that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.”

Whatever “X” factor you wish to choose, the point is that trial by a jury of your peers has been guaranteed as a right since the Magna Carta of 2015; over 800-years ago.

So you would let a rapist or murderer go free? you might ask. I would not like to, no. Nor would I want to send a man to death row for thirty-years for murders he did not commit. If the prosecution cannot prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, you have to vote not guilty.

During the term of someone claiming to be governor of Arizona, the State created a guilty until proven innocent law. That law was used on Harold Fish [3] who was found guilty of defending his life. The law was reversed and grandfathered to his case. He was exonerated at a re-trial. The appellate court reversed the decision because:

In July 2009, the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed Fish’s conviction because the trial judge failed to give necessary jury instructions, and because the judge improperly excluded evidence of Kuenzli’s past acts of violence which Fish attempted to present to support his claim that Kuenzli was the aggressor.[4]

Now do you see the importance of your place on a jury? More importantly, do you see why it is important for you to understand your authority as a juror? Even though Arizona passed a guilty until proven innocent provision, you know that is unconstitutional. It flies in the very face of the basis of our justice system. You can vote to acquit. That includes courts at the local and, so-called, federal level. It only takes one.

In the case of Harold Fish, I would have been that one.

MY PROBLEMS WITH THE JURY PROCESS

I do have problems with the jury process as it is practiced today.  The Supreme Court has decided that it is not required that the courts instruct you on the power you actually have. Thus you will probably have to research the jury duty process for yourself.

During my research I found the Fully Informed Jury Association site. There is a lot of good information including a PDF on how to survive the Voir Dire process. The Voir Dire process is the process in which defense and prosecuting attorneys can eliminate potential jurors. Saying the least is the best.

The prosecutor in this case asked if our family or friends would call me a “conspiracy theorists.” Did anyone believe, for example, that we did not land on the moon. I raised my hand and the prosecutor asked if I really believed we did not land on the moon. I explained that I had seen the evidence and it was not conclusive. To set the record straight, I believe we landed on the moon because I neither have the time or inclination to examine the evidence.

My “conspiracy theories” are more along the lines of the erosion of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. The fact that windmills are more dangerous than good to our environment and wildlife. The fact that global warming has nothing to do with anthropomorphic C02, but simply the natural wobble of the earth on its axis. United Nations treaties targeted at destroying our Constitution and sovereignty as a nation. Things I can prove. Or disprove.

I have a problem with the courts not following the Seventh Amendment [5] which reads:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

It does not say, …where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars to be increased 6% per annum allowing for cost overrides and etc. ad nauseum, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved. It says twenty dollars. Admittedly you are probably not very bright if you are demanding a jury trial for a parking ticket.  After all you are likely in line for a warning or maybe a fine of less than $100. If you persist, you may wind up with much more. Especially since you will upset the people that had to be pulled in for jury duty.

The point is that if you demand a jury trial, you are due one. Especially in the case of the employees you hire called the government are trying to take your property that might be well over $20. It should be twelve of your peers.

I was concerned about a jury of less than eight of my peers. I have found evidence in my studies, however, that there were juries of less than twelve in the past. If there is the possibility of you spending more than a year in prison or a hefty fine that you obviously cannot afford (and, thus, have to make it up in prison), you need a jury of twelve of your peers.

PLAN AHEAD

So my advice is that if you are ever summoned for jury duty, plan ahead. Plan on being picked. In fact, call the clerk and tell them you want to be in the first venire or panel. Remember that if you serve, you will not be required to serve again for a certain number of years. In Arizona it’s two. Otherwise they can keep summoning you.

In my case, I did not understand that—if chosen—I would have to stay there for the duration. Or find away to travel the 70 miles back and forth each day. For the courts part, they offered me a hotel room which I immediately accepted.  I thought that I would be able to take the borrowed car home. I found out that I would not. Next time I will see if a person is going to, or can take me to, the city of the court in question and pick me up if I do not get selected.

As for my friend, there are free services to caretakers—even if you are not a family member. In other words, if I need a vacation or, say, need to do jury duty, the county would have provided a free substitute for the duration. I did not realize this until after I was excused.

As for my dog, I have a problem. There is only one person that he would stay overnight with comfortably and that person is no longer in my life.  It would be a stress on him to stay overnight with anyone else, much less three days (four including the day for jury selection). I would, however, arrange to have him stay with the closest person I know and he will have to suffer through. Have a trusted friend collect your mail daily and feed your cat or fish.

If you get summoned, just plan on getting selected. Especially if you are trying hard enough. Arrange for transportation if needed. Call the court and see if a taxi service is available. In my rural area this might not be an option.

Call the county or local offices and see if services are available to help you serve on jury duty. Aid in transportation or taking care of sick relatives. If you might be late for a bill payment, call the creditor or utility company and explain that you might be late because of jury duty.

Make your employer aware of your summons right away so that he can arrange to have that time frame covered. Employers are not required to pay for the time you spend at jury duty in most states, but they cannot fire you. It will be less stress on your employer if you arrange for a cover just in case.

The point is that you should want to serve on a jury. A Grand Jury might be a little more of a problem, but it is an important part of our jury process. In fact the Grand Jury has to pass the case onto trial. You might be able to stop a politically motivated case from even going to trial.

Here is my interview conducted by Luca Zanna of Love, Guns and Freedom on KTOX radio. I am in the second hour.

NOTE: This article references PDF files which require Adobe PDF reader. If you do not want to read them online or for some other reason prefer to download the file, click the right button on your mouse and select Save Link As. You can, of course, print the files if you prefer.

---

---

I find it interesting when the government gets religion. More accurately, I find it suspicious. Particularly when they speak under the banner of separation of Church and State.

I recently listened to a program on a web site called Love Guns and Freedom. Gianaluca Zanna Pastor Walt Mansfield from Ohio who exposed FEMAs use of pastors to perpetuating the Romans 13 lie.

I have run into this debate before. I debated this with a friend on a web site whom I am sure believes he is a good and devout Christian. He is absolutely convinced that the perverse interpretation delivered from the pulpit of FEMA (Which obviously violates their so-called separation of Church and State) is true and correct. That we should allow the absolute rule of His Majesty Obama and his court. By the way this is the same FEMA which violated the Constitution during the Katrina crisis and labeled the forefathers as terrorists.

I shall make a few observations first.

It is interesting that the court and his adoring serfs liken Obama to the mythical character of Robin Hood. Particularly since Robin Hood was an outlaw. What does that make Obama?

Another problem with this characterization is what Robin Hood stood for. Robin Hood lived in a era, so the myth goes, where the Normans were inflicting unjust rule over the Saxons with a leader who had usurped the power he was intrusted with. Prince John, the usurper, continually wrote “executive orders” which were in conflict with the the rule of law set forth by the rightful King of England—King Richard. King Richard was, at the time, off fighting against terrorists in the Middle East.

Indeed, the characterization of the Prince John is more apt to describe Obama.

The second observation is that those who call themselves the foederal (original spelling) government are being hypocritical. They use pieces of scripture to build their religion. This is not unusual since most “religions” do the same thing. They will feed you the lines of Jesus taking care of the poor. Yet, they ignore the scripture, “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.” (2 Thessalonians 3:10) Taking care of the poor actually goes back to the Old Testament. Taking care of widows and orphans and those who cannot take care of themselves is Christian teaching. James 1:27 tells us, “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” In the Old Testament, when harvesting crops the farmers were ordered to leave a certain amount of food laying for the poor to gather. The onus was on the people to do this, not the employees of the people.

The third, and most interesting, observation in my mind is the fact that before the American War for Independence, the clergy was used to inspire the justification of their cause. The clergy was among the most educated in that era. Their opinions were highly regarded. When the war started they became the first Chaplains in the service of the United States actually participating in the battles.

One of the most wasteful uses of tax dollars is supporting those “Non-Profits” that support government positions. These “Pastors” who spew the Romans 13 nonsense actually get paid by the national government, according to some accounts.

Patrick Henry warned of this during the debates in Virginia to discuss the ratification of the Constitution. On June 9, 1788 he warned:

Congress, by the power of taxation, by that of raising an army, and by their control over the militia, have the sword in one hand, and the purse in the other. Shall we be safe without either? Congress have an unlimited power over both: they are entirely given up by us. Let him candidly tell me, where and when did freedom exist, when the sword and purse were given up from the people?

ROMANS XIII

The text in question is Romans, Chapter 13 beginning with Verse 1.

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Of course they completely bypass Romans 1:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

In 1865, Andrew W. Young wrote The Government Class Book. This book was used extensively in schools throughout the States. Young was an educator who wrote several books on the topics of civics. In Chapter III—Laws, defined.—he wrote:

Sec.7. If, as has been said, the laws of the Creator form a perfect rule of conduct for all mankind, and ought in all cases to be obeyed, then all human law ought to agree with the divine law. If a human law is contrary to the divine law, or if it requires us to disobey the commands of God, it is not binding, and should not be obeyed.

So-called Progressives love to use the words of Thomas Paine “The atheist.” Like many religious orders use pieces of scripture—including Romans 13—to make points, so too the Progressives.

This is really the crux of the matter at hand. The use of pieces of scripture rather than taking the Bible, or other work, as a whole.

Progressives like to quote Paine as attacking “Christianity” when he really attacked “Religion.” Religious orders. He wrote Common Sense in support of the American War of Independence.

Yes, that dirty person violated Romans 13! How dare he!

Progressives do not like his message to the Quakers in the Appendix to the work:

O ye partial ministers of your own acknowledged principles. If the bearing arms be sinful, the first going to war must be more so, by all the difference between wilful attack, and unavoidable defence. Wherefore, if ye really preach from conscience, and mean not to make a political hobbyhorse of your religion convince the world thereof, by proclaiming your doctrine to our enemies, for they likewise bear arms. Give us proof of your sincerity by publishing it at St. James’s, to the commanders in chief at Boston, to the Admirals and Captains who are piratically ravaging our coasts, and to all the murdering miscreants who are acting in authority under him whom ye profess to serve. Had ye the honest soul of Barclay ye would preach repentance to your king; Ye would tell the Royal Wretch his sins, and warn him of eternal ruin. Ye would not spend your partial invectives against the injured and the insulted only, but, like faithful ministers, would cry aloud and spare none. Say not that ye are persecuted, neither endeavour to make us the authors of that reproach, which, ye are bringing upon yourselves; for we testify unto all men, that we do not complain against you because ye are Quakers, but because ye pretend to be and are NOT Quakers.

Alas! it seems by the particular tendency of some part of your testimony, and other parts of your conduct, as if, all sin was reduced to, and comprehended in, the act of bearing arms, and that by the people only. Ye appear to us, to have mistaken party for conscience; because, the general tenor of your actions wants uniformity—And it is exceedingly difficult to us to give credit to many of your pretended scruples; because, we see them made by the same men, who, in the very instant that they are exclaiming against the mammon of this world, are nevertheless, hunting after it with a step as steady as Time, and an appetite as keen as Death.

The quotation which ye have made from Proverbs, in the third page of your testimony, that, “when a man’s ways please the Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him”; is very unwisely chosen on your part; because, it amounts to a proof, that the king’s ways (whom ye are desirous of supporting) do note please the Lord, otherwise, his reign would be in peace.

The Quakers were screaming for peace. Most notably John Dickenson of Philadelphia at the First Continental Congress. The use of arms was abhorrent to them. The Quakers may have even referred to Romans 13 in their defense—though I cannot find records to prove that.

Thomas Paine was not recommending a double-barrel shotgun shot into the air.

Another person progressives love to quote (except for his stance on the ownership of firearms) is Thomas Jefferson. The seal of the United States that he designed included his personal quote:

Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.

This leads to the final argument against the Romans 13 lie.

FEDERALISM

“When government acts in excess of its lawful powers, individual liberty is at stake.”—Justice Kennedy, Supreme Court, Bond v. United States (564 U.S. __ (2011))

Most children were taught even before Communist Cores schools that the foederal government is that government which resides and does business in the District of Columbia.

The Supreme Court made one of its rare unanimous decisions concerning the concept of federalism in the case of Carol Anne Bond v. United States in 2011 (PDF; Alternate PDF with notations). It strengthened the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. More importantly, the short decision is a primer on what federalism actually is.

The important text of the brief 14 page decision written by Justice Kennedy starts at Section III on Page 8. It should be read by every student in the Great State of Arizona, if not the whole States United. It is more important to understand this concept than passing the immigration test. Most of the employees you put into office DO NOT understand this concept.

If you have children, you should download and print this decision. Read it with them and discuss it.

THE CONSTITUTION DEFINES THE GOVERNMENT

A final analysis takes a look into why rebellion against a tyrannical government—particularly in the United States—represents compliance with Romans 13.

The Constitution of the United States defines the government. It defines it very clearly in Article IV, Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,…

This does NOT mean the “Republican Party.” This is a form of government. It is NOT Democracy. There are elements of Democracy involved. Even Thomas Jefferson conceded that pure Democracy could only be exercised on the local level, i.e. county/city level.

It also defines the responsibility of those entrusted with protecting the rights of the People under the terms of that document. Article II, Section 1; Clause 8 of the Constitution requires the President to take an oath to:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The “government” expanded this oath for “all others” in 5 U.S. Code §3331 specifies:

An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” This section does not affect other oaths required by law.

Let us make something clear, at this point. The Constitution of the United States is not just the document that bears that title. The Constitution of a country is simply the “Law of the Land.” When the Pharaoh of Egypt said, So let it be written, so let it be done, it became part of the Constitution. The Articles of Association, Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation are equally a part of the Constitution.

Those people we hire at election time are our employees. Their job—whether national, State or local—is defined in the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,…

What is the duty of the People?

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Jefferson was paraphrasing the liberal writer John Locke. Liberal is the correct term. Liberal actually means a person who believes in limited government.

I urge you to view a copy of the Declaration of Independence. Look at the list of grievances outlined. Do you really believe that the Constitution of the United States was intended to turn those grievances into government bureaucracies?

In fact the example our forefathers gave to comply with Romans 13 was given on April 19, 1775 in Concord and Lexington.

Fifth Amendment case in Denver causes concerns

by Glen C. Davis

Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that GPS tracking devises violated the Constitutional Fourth Amendment guarantees because people have a reasonable right to privacy in their cars. As I understand the ruling, however, if you have OnStar® or one of the other government tracking devices already in your car, they can track you through that system.

On January 4th, the Denver Post reported on another example of the courts grappling with the Bill of Rights in the digital age. And the case is shaking up civil liberties groups.

The case involves Ramona Fricosu who was allegedly involved in a fraud scheme along with her husband. One of the items seized by the prosecutors was her laptop computer. The laptop, however, was encrypted and the prosecutor could not retrieve the contents. Fricosu refused to give the password citing her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

John Ingold of the Denver Post reported on the 24th, “In an order issued Monday, U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn said requiring Ramona Fricosu to provide an unencrypted version of her laptop’s hard drive to prosecutors does not violate her rights against self-incrimination. Instead, Blackburn ruled that providing the unlocked laptop wouldn’t be self-incriminatory because it wouldn’t prove anything that the government doesn’t already know.”

Hanni Fakhoury, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, still thinks the Fifth Amendment applies in this case, according to the article. The case is going to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

This is actually a compelling case and one likely to make it to the Supreme Court. On the one hand, you do have a right not to provide incriminating evidence in the Fifth Amendment. That is why signing anything “under penalty of perjury” is quite frankly unconstitutional. You cannot be compelled to sign away your rights.

On the other hand, the Fourth Amendment guarantees, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated,…” While the police today have pretty much the same power that the “Redcoats” had prior to the revolution—which was among the chief complaints of the colonists—they still must obtain a warrant from a judge. In this case, they did that and the seized computer was among the evidence for their case. Whether or not the computer and the location of the computer was specified on the warrant as is REQUIRED by the Fourth Amendment is another topic.

In this case, I would have to agree with District Judge Blackburn. Apparently the laptop was just another piece of evidence in the pieces of evidence that they already had.

Let us set another scenario, however. Let us say that a person is sitting and using a wireless laptop at a coffee shop. A police officer wanders over and the person presses a button and locks the computer. Does the officer have a “probable cause” to order the person to unlock the laptop? No. This would violate both the Fourth and Fifth Amendment. If the officer “sees” something that the person is doing and knows that it is illegal, he may then have probable cause to arrest and cause the person to unlock the computer. He already sees it and knows it is there. If the coffee shop owner, however, sees actual evidence that the person is using the computer for illegal purposes and reports it, then the police have enough for a warrant and to cause the person to unlock.

Granted, in the case of Fricosu, the prosecutors and police have not “seen” the contents so they do not “know” there is anything related to the case on the computer at all. That may be an “out” in this case. Still, I believe there is enough “probable cause” that this does not represent a violation of either the Fourth or Fifth Amendment. Does the lock on your front door, for example, give you a Fifth Amendment right to keep officers from performing their duty after they have complied with the Fourth Amendment?

One question that might come up, however, is what about online storage sites? If a person stores the data at an online site that is not listed on the search warrant, can the police access it or use it as evidence? I would think not until they obtained another warrant for the evidence. Of course, that would be served to the provider of the service, not the defendant.

Rather than rehash the difference in democratic principles between the founding fathers and those of the democratic party today, I would like to begin this article by referring you to my previous article on the subject. It is a long-winded way of saying that when I refer to Marxist democrats, I am referring to the democrats today rather than the Locke democrats of our history. This seems, to my mind, the best way to preface this article. Certainly I do not mean to imply that all democrats are Marxists. The article, however, explains itself.

I preface it in this fashion because I find Schenck v. United States 249 U.S. 47 (1919) an interesting First Amendment case in light of what is happening today. It is important for more than just the fact that it coined two phrases.

In this case, Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote,

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force.”

In paragraph 5 he writes further,

“The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

This is the coining of the phrases, “You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” and “clear and present danger.”

That begs the question of what is a “clear and present danger?” John McCain and 92 of his cohorts seem to feel that they have answered that question with the passage of S. 1867 and the infamous Section 1301 of the National Defense Authorization Act. Diane Feinstein even wrote an amendment to ensure that there was a provision in this section that it did not apply to American citizens. She voted on it even though her amendment failed. The gist of this, as you may have read, is that the military now has the authority to round up “dissidents” and place them in Gitmo and other foreign prisons to silence them.

Apparently our own gulags are too full of those damn pot smokers!

So what constitutes a “clear and present danger?” Is it the gal with the peace sticker on her car? Certainly a person with a pocket Constitution and a Ron Paul sticker is suspect. Are you “supporting terror” and “not supporting our troops” or aiding the enemy if you speak out against the war? I suppose that you can add me to that list because I speak out against the war precisely because I support the troops. I object to dumping a trillion dollars into a war which killed and dismembered thousands of our dedicated young people with no clear objective to achieve. It is the same process we used on our Vietnam veterans who served their country and returned to be spat upon and to be told that they are really not sick.

Even Discover Magazine used space—best served to teach us the grandeur of evolutionary science—to comment on the horrors of S. 1867. Salon is one of the few that are using the Marxists clarion call of, “It’s not that bad.” You may find the opposing view there.

What is interesting is that the case concerns Comrade Schenck—the general secretary of the Socialist Party—who was convicted on three counts of conspiracy. He was distributing pamphlets to drafted men to avoid the draft and stay out of World War I. I suppose, now, we know where the Marxist of the sixties got the idea to “burn their draft cards.”

Now those Marxists form the core of the usurped “Democratic Party” and the Southern Poverty Law Center. They are now using this “clear and present danger” theory to attack anyone who mentions the Constitution and that they have rights under the Bill of Rights. They attack anyone who speak out against the intrusion on our rights. Especially anyone who knows the truth about the Second Amendment. They have attacked the “TEA party” movement as terrorists and the Oathkeepers who do not advocate violence or that people stay out of the military or police—only that they remember their oath to the Constitution.

It seems strange that this decision seems to have come full circle. From applying these principles to those who were advocating violations of the Constitution to those who are defending it.

As these Marxist often do, they do not use quotes except those that serve their needs. They do not quote Abraham Lincoln who said, “To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.” There probably is no text book in school that quotes Thomas Jefferson who said, “No experiment can be more interesting than that we are trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth. Our first objective should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues of truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is the freedom of the press. It is, therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions.”

As the Anti-Federalist Brutus observed, “But remember, when the people once part with power, they can seldom or never resume it again but by force. Many instances can be produced in which the people have voluntarily increased the powers of their rulers; but few, if any, in which rulers have willingly abridged their authority. This is a sufficient reason to induce you to be careful, in the first instance, how you deposit the powers of government.”

Schenck v. United States 249 U.S. 47 (1919)

I have published two white papers on an Arizona State Guard at the Constitutional Republic Party web site. They are PDFs requiring Adobe Reader. I am working on more.

After the War for Independence, the country had to form a more perfect union. The question was, what kind.

The States were used to autonomy. Many were so satisfied with this arrangement that the preferred to remain under the Articles of Confederation. There were many opponents to the new Constitution of the United States known as Anti-Federalists.

The Federalists were those in favor of the new Constitution and its “limited” form of government. They never anticipated their posterity twisting of the words of the Constitution to eliminate the freedoms they had fought for.

But the Anti-Federalists did. “It might be here shewn, that the power in the federal legislative, to raise and support armies at pleasure, as well in peace as in war, and their controul over the militia, tend, not only to a consolidation of the government, but the destruction of liberty,” a writer who wrote as Brutus complained.

Essays on the Constitution was edited by Paul Leicester Ford and published in 1842. It is an intriguing look at the arguments in the newspapers of the time on the subject.

It seems that Rhode Island was not favored among the several States. Mr. Ford added a letter from a writer for Rhode Island.

I edited the work further giving it a new index and adding the works of Brutus which were referred to in the original work, but never added. I added, also, the objections by Elbridge Gerry, Patrick Henry and Colonel George Mason—All of which refused to sign the Constitution.

This book is an interesting view of the battle for ratification of the Constitution and a good read for anyone studying the history of the United States from those who lived it.

SEE ALSO: Anti-federalist are “Political Jesuits” under Satanick influence

Order any of my books from now until April 30 and receive the shipping of a single book free up to $4.99.

Use coupon code APRILMAIL305 at checkout, select Mail Shipping and receive the single book shipping cost free. Maximum savings with this promotion is $4.99. Print and tax amounts are excluded. You can only use the code once per account, and you can’t use this coupon in combination with other coupon codes. This great offer ends on April 30, 2011 at 11:59 PM so try not to procrastinate! While very unlikely we do reserve the right to change or revoke this offer at anytime, and of course we cannot offer this coupon where it is against the law to do so. Transaction must be in US dollars.

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.—Brainy Quotes

Thomas Jefferson was born this day in 1743 in Virginia. He was the third president, wrote the initial draft of the Declaration of Independence, promoted the principles of a Republic, and was our first Secretary of State. He was responsible for the Louisiana Purchase which occurred on the 30th of this month in 1803 doubling the size of America overnight.

Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day.

Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive.

An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens.

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

It is our duty still to endeavor to avoid war; but if it shall actually take place, no matter by whom brought on, we must defend ourselves. If our house be on fire, without inquiring whether it was fired from within or without, we must try to extinguish it.

Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson_5.html#ixzz1IlGz0SkB