Jefferson Was Correct

thomasjefferson
Source: TheRoadLessTraveled
January 29, 2016

In his last years – after a lifetime of learning and experience, Jefferson had one thing preeminently on his mind: the principle of decentralized government.

Rather than saying “centralization,” Jefferson used the word “consolidation,” but they mean the same thing. Here’s his core statement on the subject, from his autobiography, written in 1821:

It is not by the consolidation, or concentration, of powers, but by their distribution, that good government is effected.

This statement put Jefferson at odds with the political leaders of his time and raised difficulties for him, as he writes in a letter to Judge William Johnson in 1823:

I have been blamed for saying, that a prevalence of the doctrines of consolidation would one day call for reformation or revolution.

For the following passage – a letter to William Johnson, written in 1822 – Jefferson’s words are set in italics and explanation/commentary in plain text:

They [a political party] rally to the point which they think next best, a consolidated government.

Here he points out that political parties tend to favor centralization, which they certainly have since.

Their aim is now, therefore, to break down the rights reserved by the Constitution to the States as a bulwark against that consolidation.

This party is trying to steal the power of the individual States and centralize it in one city, and they are willing to alter or bypass the Constitution to do so. The fear of which produced the whole of the opposition to the Constitution at its birth….

Here Jefferson is saying the Anti-Federalists were right and that the Constitution could not prevent the theft of liberties by the national government.

I trust…that the friends of the real Constitution and Union will prevail against consolidation, as they have done against monarchism.

Notice his phrase, “the real Constitution.” Already in 1822, he needed to make this distinction, because the Constitution was already being twisted, overridden, and bypassed. Alternately, he may have been referring to the original Articles of Confederation.

In a letter to William T. Barry in 1822, Jefferson writes this:

The foundations are already deeply laid by their [the Supreme Court Justices’] decisions for the annihilation of constitutional State rights, and the removal of every check, every counterpoise to the engulfing power of which themselves are to make a sovereign part.

Jefferson is likely referring to the Marbury v. Madison decision of 1803, a decision that…

Continue Reading At: TheRoadLessTraveled

Big Government Police State: Florida residents being fined for growing vegetables on their own property

Vegetable gardens
Source: NaturalNews.com
Samantha Debbie
August 4, 2016

Florida may be known for its tropical climate and spicy Latin-American culture, but what it’s not known for is the freedom to garden. The southeastern state continues to make headlines over the state government’s contempt for front yard gardens.

Tom Carroll and Hermine Ricketts had been cultivating their garden for 17 years when their hometown, Miami Shores, passed a new ordinance restricting vegetable growing to the backyard. The couple begrudgingly dug up their lush garden in August 2013, after local officials threatened them with a daily fine of $50, according to reporting by Fox News.

Miami Shores fights longtime residents over front yard vegetable garden

The ordinance was a component of a new zoning plan adopted by the town, which has a population of about 10,500 people, and is located just north of Miami.

The South Florida couple sued over the garden ban, arguing that it was a violation of the state’s Constitution, because it included “improper limits on their private property rights and violation of the equal protection clause by singling out vegetables over other plants.”

The couple’s attorney argued at a hearing in June 2016 that barring them from growing vegetables anywhere on their property violated their Constitutional rights.

“We’re not saying you can do anything you want on your property,” attorney Ari Bargil told Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Monica Gordo. “We are simply saying you can grow vegetables on your property and that is protected by the Constitution.”

Growing vegetables is not a fundamental right, says community lawyer

Richard Sarafan, the attorney for Miami Shores, countered that the new zoning rule was not “irrational and treated all homeowners the same: their front yards should be covered with grass, sod or a ‘living ground cover’ not further defined. It’s no problem, he said, to have a vegetable garden in the backyard,” according to reports.

“There certainly is not fundamental right to grow vegetables in your front yard,” Sarafan said. “Aesthetics and uniformity are legitimate government purposes. Not every property can lawfully be used for every purpose.”

On Thursday, August 25, a Miami-Dade judge upheld the ruling, indefinitely banning front yard gardens. Circuit Judge Monica Gordo ruled that while she doesn’t understand the argument that front yard gardens destroy aesthetics in neighborhoods, the city nonetheless has the right to ban them, according to the Miami Herald.

Judge: City has ‘every right to decide front-yard veggies make a neighborhood ugly’

“Given the high degree of deference that must be given to a democratically elected governmental body … Miami Shores’ ban on vegetable gardens outside of the backyard passes constitutional scrutiny,” wrote Gordo.

The ruling is a big disappointment for the South Florida couple, who love to grow a variety of organic vegetables including okra, kale, lettuce, onions, spinach and several varieties of cabbage.

“I am disappointed by today’s ruling,” said Ricketts, whose legal battle with the city lasted three long years.

“My garden not only provided us with food, but it was also beautiful and added character to the community. I look forward to continuing this fight and ultimately winning so I can once again use my property productively instead of being forced to have a useless lawn.”

Meanwhile, the upscale community maintains its right to regulate the area’s aesthetic. Vegetables are fine as long as they’re out of sight, said the community’s attorney at a hearing in June.

A ‘blow to property rights’

The only recourse the couple has is to ask that the ordinance be revised or vote in new council members, said the judge.

“They can petition the Village Council to change the ordinance. They can also support candidates for the Council who agree with their view that the ordinance should be repealed,” wrote Gordo.

“If Hermine and Tom wanted to grow fruit or flowers or display pink flamingos, Miami Shores would have been completely fine with it,” said the couple’s lawyer, Ari Bargil, a representative from the Institute for Justice, a libertarian law firm.

“They should be equally free to grow food for their own consumption, which they did for 17 years before the village forced them to uproot the very source of their sustenance.”

The firm called the ruling a “blow to property rights.”

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

MiamiHerald.com

OffTheGridNews.com

FoxNews.com

NaturalNews.com

What Freedom Of Speech?: Social Media Censorship Is Out of Control! Here’s One Solution

Source: TheCorbettReport
James Corbett
August 10, 2016

SHOW NOTES: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=19542

We all know by now that the tech giants of Silicon Valley are in bed with the government and they’re not afraid to censor posts they disagree with from their social media platforms. So what if there was a decentralised, open source, blockchain-based social media alternative? On today’s thought for the day we talk about the censorship problem and the Steemit solution.

University Of Chicago Accidentally Proved That Gun Control Laws Don’t Work

Criminals don’t follow the law, and they especially do not follow gun control laws.


Source: AmericanPatriotDaily.com
August 4, 2016

The city of Chicago has some of the toughest and strictest gun control laws on the books out of all the major cities in the entire country.

But every day the newspapers and TV stations of Chicago fill the airwaves with devastating reports showing innocent Americans being murdered by criminals carrying guns.

The city is a shining example of how gun control doesn’t stop criminals from obtaining and using guns to commit robbery and murder.

Instead of allowing law abiding Americans the chance to easily acquire a firearm for self-defense, politicians and public officials in Chicago call for harsher anti-gun measures almost daily.

The anti-gun crowd refuses to accept reality and the fact that criminals don’t obey gun control laws. They would rather disarm law abiding citizens who accept and obey the law.

A recent study by the University of Chicago proved this point after conducting a study to figure out how criminals in Chicago were acquiring their firearms.

Not surprisingly, administers of the study quickly learned these criminals do not acquire their guns from licensed dealers, private sellers, or even the Internet.

The study looked at inmates in Chicago’s Cook County Jail who face gun charges or who have a history of firearm related convictions.

They learned zero criminals have used gun shows or the Internet to purchase their weapons.

The reason why?  The method is too easily traceable by law enforcement.

Instead, the preferred method for criminals was to purchase firearms available on the streets, where they are harder for law enforcement to track.

Harold Pollack, University of Chicago’s Crime Lab co-director, also said criminals, “were less concerned about getting caught by the cops than being put in the position of not having a gun to defend themselves and then getting shot.”

Basically, the University of Chicago admits that the city is so dangerous, criminals would rather risk going to jail than not being able to effectively defend themselves.

The study also showed:

“The vast majority of the inmates used handguns to commit their crimes or protect themselves, very few cited using “military-style assault weapons.” And they said their habit was to get rid of a gun after one year because of the “legal liability” of being caught with a gun that could be linked to crimes they or others committed.

As for specifics regarding sources for purchasing guns, some of the inmates indicated that gangs have individuals with a Firearm Owners Identification Card who buy guns then sell them to gang members. Others indicated using “corrupt cops” who seize guns then “put them back on the street.”

Gun rights groups have long claimed universal background checks are nothing more than a step towards a federal registry of all gun owners – which gun rights groups also argue would consequentially lead to outright confiscation of all firearms in America.

So while the anti-gun crowd pushes a purely fictional narrative that background checks stop bad guys from getting guns, the actual statistics and facts say their argument couldn’t be further from the truth.

Read More At: AmericanPatriotDaily.com

Hillary: ‘I’m Not Here To Take Away Your Guns’ – But She Will

gun-control
Source: TheDailyBell.com
July 29, 2016

Hillary Clinton at her DNC speech: “I’m not here to take away your guns” …   Hillary Clinton wants you to know one thing about her position on gun control: “I’m not here to repeal the Second Amendment. I’m not here to take away your guns.”  She elaborated further on her comments, which she made at her Democratic National Convention speech accepting the presidential nomination: “I just don’t want you to be shot by someone who shouldn’t have a gun in the first place.” –Vox

During her acceptance speech, see above, Hillary said she wasn’t going to take away guns in the US, but this is untrue.

She knows just how to do it.

First of all, she will make guns more expensive with new back ground checks.

Second, she will make guns manufacturers liable for selling guns that later are used in crimes.

But that is just the beginning.

Hillary doesn’t actually believe that people in the US should have guns.

In a Fox post HERE entitled, “Four ways Hillary Clinton will work to end gun ownership as president,” John Lott points out that in an appearance on ABC, Hillary would not say whether citizens had a constitutional right to own guns.

George Stephanopoulos pushed Clinton twice on whether people have a right to own guns on ABC News’ “This Week”:

“But that’s not what I asked.  I said do you believe that their conclusion that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right?”

Clinton could only say: “If it is a constitutional right…”

Clinton like other gun opponents, believes an overabundance of guns are responsible for the shootings that take place in the US, especially in mass shootings.

But there are many questions about these mass shootings.

David Steele, second-highest-ranking civilian in the U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence and former CIA clandestine services case officer, has said this HERE:

“Most terrorists are false flag terrorists, or are created by our own security services. In the United States, every single terrorist incident we have had has been a false flag, or has been an informant pushed on by the FBI. In fact, we now have citizens taking out restraining orders against FBI informants that are trying to incite terrorism. We’ve become a lunatic asylum.”

Such FBI involvement leads one to ask whether there are forces in and behind the US government that are manufacturing violence in order to justify continued anti-gun agitation.

Authoritarian governments and those who back them don’t want people to have guns because without guns, it is much easier to force people to obey. When people are not armed, genocide becomes a more viable and convenient option.

Government killed hundreds of millions in the 20th century. The 21st century may equally bloody, especially if guns continue to be confiscated.

In the US, many citizens have fought back against gun confiscation.  But if Hillary wins the presidency, discussions about gun control will become moot.

Guns will be confiscated. Lott explains it this way:

Until 2008, Washington, D.C., had a complete handgun ban. It was also a felony to put a bullet in the chamber of a gun. In effect, this was a complete ban on guns. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down these laws.

But the constituency of the Supreme Court is changing. Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are Bill Clinton appointees. Sonia Sotomayor was appointed by Obama as was Elana Kagan.

“If Hillary wins in November, she will appoint [Antonin] Scalia’s successor and the Supreme Court will overturn the Heller decision.  Make no mistake about it, gun bans will return.”

Only one more appointee is needed.

Conclusion: Hillary herself will not have to “pull the trigger” on gun confiscations. She will let the Supreme Court do it for her.

Read More At: TheDailyBell.com

BIG GOVERNMENT ALERT: “Free Speech Cage” At DNC Is A Truly Pathetic Image Of Modern American Freedom

free speech dnc
Source: ActivistPost.com
Melissa Dykes
July 28, 2016

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. — The First Amendment

Congress shall make no law… but they shall erect a “free speech cage.”

Yeah, this really looks like freedom. Look at these people. Is this a zoo, you might ask?

No. It’s protesters exercising their First Amendment rights to shout “Hell no, DNC! We won’t vote for Hillary!” over and over outside the corrupt dog and pony show that is the Democratic National Convention — in a rusty metal cage that looks like something out of the horror film Silent Hill.

What a sad, pathetic testament to modern American “freedom” this is.

And what a sad, pathetic circus sideshow this whole fake, rigged “selection” process to nominate Hillary has been.

(That cage is what the entire nation is about to become if Hillary becomes president, just by the way.)

Read More At: ActivistPost.com

Verizon-Yahoo Deal Shows Once Again the Need to Remove Intellectual Property Rights

government-dissent-mental

Source: TheDailyBell.com
July 26, 2016

Verizon is buying Yahoo for $4.8 billion … It’s official: The sale completes Yahoo’s evolution from influential search pioneer and web portal juggernaut to, in the end, a once-dominant brand that lost its way. Parties as diverse as Warren Buffett and The Daily Mail were interested in buying Yahoo. But after a sale process that dragged on for months, Verizon (VZ, Tech30), long viewed as the frontrunner, is walking away with Yahoo’s more than one billion monthly active users. –CNN Money

Another huge merger has taken place. Perhaps a billion consumer emails plus related technology will change hands, further stratifying the Internet and providing less opportunity for others.

If people believe the pace of technological innovation has slowed in the past years, they are probably correct. As ZeroHedge pointed out in May, “Venture capital investments in Silicon Valley fell almost 20 percent in the first quarter [of 2016] from a year earlier to $4.9 billion.”

We would argue this is part of a larger trend. With such gigantic companies dominating the Internet, there is less room for groundbreaking innovation.

These large companies act as gatekeepers, preserving what has already been accomplished and ensuring to a large degree that what is now developed doesn’t threaten what has come before.

As usual, intellectual property rights are at fault. Absent court enforced intellectual property rights, the pace of technological innovation might actually pick up and technology might move in new or unexpected directions.

We’ve argued before that in the modern era, intellectual property rights are not performing the functions that were intended.

This is not surprising. We certainly know from “human action” that no law works as intended. In fact, laws are basically price-fixes, redistributing wealth and reducing opportunity.

Here’s a statement by Justice William O. Douglas as pertains to a case entitled A & P. TEA CO. v. SUPERMARKET CORP., (340 U.S. 147, 1950).

Every patent is the grant of a privilege of exacting tolls from the public. The Framers plainly did not want those monopolies freely granted. The invention, to justify a patent, had to serve the ends of science – to push back the frontiers of chemistry, physics, and the like; to make a distinctive contribution to scientific knowledge.

Who exactly decides what is a “distinctive contribution.” Like most such law, the guidelines themselves are so vague as to prevent any sensible enforcement.

Here’s an excerpt from an article in the Atlantic entitled, “The Case for Abolishing Patents (Yes, All of Them).”

Our patent system is a mess. It’s a fount of expensive litigation that allows aging companies to linger around by bullying their more innovative competitors in court. Critics have suggested plenty of reasonable reforms, from eliminating software patents to clamping down on “trolls” who buy up patent portfolios only so they can file lawsuits. But do we need a more radical solution? Would we be possibly be better off without any patents at all?

That’s the striking suggestion from a Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis working paper by Michele Boldrin and David Levine, professors at Washington University in St. Louis who argue that any patent system, no matter how well conceived, is bound to devolve into the kind of quagmire we’re dealing with today.

In fact, the quagmire is not just one of litigation.

The real issue is one of monopoly. Google is a good example. It is very obvious that Google has a close relationship with US intel and military interests.

From Insurge Intelligence, HERE:

Insurge, a new crowd-funded investigative journalism project, breaks the exclusive story of how the United States intelligence community funded, nurtured and incubated Google as part of a drive to dominate the world through control of information. Seed-funded by the NSA and CIA, Google was merely the first among a plethora of private sector start-ups co-opted by US intelligence to retain ‘information superiority.’

It is actually intellectual property rights that give Google its reach and depth. The result is a CIA controlled operation paid for by taxpayers.

It is ultimately the US judicial system that enforces intellectual property rights and the intel control attached to them.

Why should taxpayers pay to enforce Google’s intellectual property rights? It should be up to Google to enforce those rights.

Intellectual property rights are supposedly essential because otherwise there would be no incentive to innovate. In fact, we can see that applying the force of the state to technological advances probably retards innovation in the modern era.

It certainly has given US intel and military interests control they would not otherwise have had so easily.

It is increasingly obvious that intellectual property rights only benefit the largest of entities on a  regular basis because it is only the largest entities that can afford to make a corrupt system work to their advantage.

In only a couple of decades the Internet has gone from a flexible and innovative environment to one that seems a good deal more regimented and increasingly less creative in the largest sense.

Conclusion:  Intellectual property rights along with corporate personhood and monopoly fiat money are culprits here. Get rid of these corporate props and the size and breadth of companies will radically subside, providing increased opportunity for everyone else – and ultimately benefiting both consumers and investors.

Read More At: TheDailyBell.com