Thursday, September 10, 2009
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
The LRP KC Street Team is returning. Get involved.
With such a dramatic summer, we’ve experienced a lot of events in the area. We’re going to be sending off the last few months of 2009 the way we kicked 2009 off, by being vigilant in the visibility of our cause. Within the next week we’re going to start doing weekly flier drops, dvd drives, constitution bombs, and poster postings all around the area.
You may have seen our “Support Corruption” flier that has now went viral and is being used by other groups around the country, well we’re slapping all kinds of info on the reverse side of it and telling people about all of the creative ways that we do and they can fight corruption. Soon we’re going to have a website dedicated to the “Support Corruption” movement where anyone in the nation can utilize the flier to mobilize their community to learn more about the various organizations around the country dedicated to the cause.
If you know a place in the KC area with heavy foot traffic on a public sidewalk that you think should be considered for an infobombing, or for more information, feel free to email kevin@libertyrestorationproject.org
Thursday, September 3, 2009
How to prevent Terrorism and Extremism - My testimony to the Missouri House Interim Comittee on State Intelligence Oversight
Revolution. How one defines the term may differ greatly depending on their beliefs on the role of Government. One common thread in this century, is that the term is commonly used to invoke feelings of the Revolutionary war.
One reason I found the practices of the Missouri Information Analysis Center so appalling is that it is only one of many sources attempting to link patriotic dissent to violence.
I urge you to take a look at "Republic" magazine #15. It details greatly the government and media instances comparing constitutionalists and the Founding Fathers to rebellious violent extremists.
Is this just another case of one man's perceived terrorist being another's perceived freedom fighter? Or perhaps there are other factors to determine when rebellion is righteous?
It's a pretty common belief that the Second Amendment is not merely for hunting or defending ones self from street hoodlums, but for communities to have the capability to respond in cases of emergency or invasion by forces foreign to our laws.
However, guns are not the only solution, nor was it the solution in the 1770's. It became the final option when all other routes were exhausted. The Declaration of Independence states "Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury."
I believe the First Amendment is our channel to allow our grievances to be addressed. If a government truly operates under the consent of the governed, then amendment one would be sufficient and the threat of violent rebellion would never exist.
Martin Luther King Jr. and later John F. Kennedy both uttered a quote that describes this fact boldly.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable."
One common belief among the demographics profiled in the MIAC reports is the belief that government has been actively and physically resisting needed revolutionary type changes and a restoration of the god-given liberties ensured by the blood of our original patriots.
When these demographics turn extreme or violent should we not examine motive? Surely not all cases are driven by an active tyranny, but what of passive tyranny?
In my short two years of activism, I find one common response. Apathy. Whether it is your average person who buys into the belief that corruption is rampant and that the only change is a slow one moved along by support of the lesser of evils, or it is the most radical extremist who believes that change must come at all cost and that all safe, legal channels have been monopolized by corrupt bureaucracies and political advantage, so they feel that the violence option remains our last hope for preserving any resemblance of freedom.
I argue that an overwhelming majority of the people have lost all hope that government could again be an institution of the people.
It is also my belief that those who do protest and testify are the ones who still have faith that when reminded of duty, checks and balances, rule of law, and that the people formed the states and the states formed the small federal union; Government, The Constitution, and the common belief that the First Amendment precedes the Second Amendment when dealing with perceived treason; can all be restored to their proper function in our society.
My argument is that adult free-thinking peoples being watched by adult peoples following orders is not a way to prevent crime nor extremism, Instead it is an escalation of the idea that government can operate outside boundaries if the cause is just while the people must be presumed potentially guilty unless proven innocent.
At every rights violation, we're told that if there is nothing to hide there is nothing to fear, and in the next breath told that some policies of the government must remain a secret due to national SECURITY.
When did the 4th amendment right to SECURITY from warrant-less nosing in your affairs begin to only apply to the government?
Nothing to hide, Nothing to fear. Meanwhile, ignorance of the law is no excuse. So while thousands of pages of new laws, rules, regulations, statutes, procedures, resolutions, executive orders, signing statements, court precedent, and court orders are made every day in this nation, how is one ever to know that by simply performing the innocent tasks of a daily life he is not incriminating himself?
My digression brings me to my final point. The source documentation of these government reports being private institutions with their own freedoms to utilize their first amendment, to target people are groups with the labels "Hate Group" or "Hate Speech." Hate speech is still protected by the Constitution also, and it is not proper for government to make such judgement except in extreme cases of violence and crime, not mere perceived potential thereof, based on perfectly legal behaviors.
To believe that we could ever end rebellious violence with authoritarianism or end hate speech with hateful reaction is almost as absurd as bombing for peace.
I ask those in government to consider their role in a free society and their ability to cure the apathetic. Stop the extremism before it starts, by refusing to do anything that would violate your oaths to the State and Unites States Constitutions.
And close any governmental institution that refuses to do the same.
One reason I found the practices of the Missouri Information Analysis Center so appalling is that it is only one of many sources attempting to link patriotic dissent to violence.
I urge you to take a look at "Republic" magazine #15. It details greatly the government and media instances comparing constitutionalists and the Founding Fathers to rebellious violent extremists.
Is this just another case of one man's perceived terrorist being another's perceived freedom fighter? Or perhaps there are other factors to determine when rebellion is righteous?
It's a pretty common belief that the Second Amendment is not merely for hunting or defending ones self from street hoodlums, but for communities to have the capability to respond in cases of emergency or invasion by forces foreign to our laws.
However, guns are not the only solution, nor was it the solution in the 1770's. It became the final option when all other routes were exhausted. The Declaration of Independence states "Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury."
I believe the First Amendment is our channel to allow our grievances to be addressed. If a government truly operates under the consent of the governed, then amendment one would be sufficient and the threat of violent rebellion would never exist.
Martin Luther King Jr. and later John F. Kennedy both uttered a quote that describes this fact boldly.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable."
One common belief among the demographics profiled in the MIAC reports is the belief that government has been actively and physically resisting needed revolutionary type changes and a restoration of the god-given liberties ensured by the blood of our original patriots.
When these demographics turn extreme or violent should we not examine motive? Surely not all cases are driven by an active tyranny, but what of passive tyranny?
In my short two years of activism, I find one common response. Apathy. Whether it is your average person who buys into the belief that corruption is rampant and that the only change is a slow one moved along by support of the lesser of evils, or it is the most radical extremist who believes that change must come at all cost and that all safe, legal channels have been monopolized by corrupt bureaucracies and political advantage, so they feel that the violence option remains our last hope for preserving any resemblance of freedom.
I argue that an overwhelming majority of the people have lost all hope that government could again be an institution of the people.
It is also my belief that those who do protest and testify are the ones who still have faith that when reminded of duty, checks and balances, rule of law, and that the people formed the states and the states formed the small federal union; Government, The Constitution, and the common belief that the First Amendment precedes the Second Amendment when dealing with perceived treason; can all be restored to their proper function in our society.
My argument is that adult free-thinking peoples being watched by adult peoples following orders is not a way to prevent crime nor extremism, Instead it is an escalation of the idea that government can operate outside boundaries if the cause is just while the people must be presumed potentially guilty unless proven innocent.
At every rights violation, we're told that if there is nothing to hide there is nothing to fear, and in the next breath told that some policies of the government must remain a secret due to national SECURITY.
When did the 4th amendment right to SECURITY from warrant-less nosing in your affairs begin to only apply to the government?
Nothing to hide, Nothing to fear. Meanwhile, ignorance of the law is no excuse. So while thousands of pages of new laws, rules, regulations, statutes, procedures, resolutions, executive orders, signing statements, court precedent, and court orders are made every day in this nation, how is one ever to know that by simply performing the innocent tasks of a daily life he is not incriminating himself?
My digression brings me to my final point. The source documentation of these government reports being private institutions with their own freedoms to utilize their first amendment, to target people are groups with the labels "Hate Group" or "Hate Speech." Hate speech is still protected by the Constitution also, and it is not proper for government to make such judgement except in extreme cases of violence and crime, not mere perceived potential thereof, based on perfectly legal behaviors.
To believe that we could ever end rebellious violence with authoritarianism or end hate speech with hateful reaction is almost as absurd as bombing for peace.
I ask those in government to consider their role in a free society and their ability to cure the apathetic. Stop the extremism before it starts, by refusing to do anything that would violate your oaths to the State and Unites States Constitutions.
And close any governmental institution that refuses to do the same.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Guns, Democracy, and the Left Right Paradigm
I have spent most of this morning reading the public reaction to the man who carried an AR-15 assault rifle to a protest outside an Obama townhall in Arizona.
The "new worlders" as I'll call them, continue to promote that "this isn't the wild west."
This is one of the many comments I hear over and over and over when it comes to the gun debate. When one examines the "wild west," we learn that one of the reasons guns were open-carried was that there was a supreme sense of community, and the community had an understanding that when outsiders would harm the community those armed would be able to defend the town.
This was not merely a time of Bandits and Sheriffs, Shootouts were the exception to the rule, and when they did happen it was often not the Hollywood image you get when liberals scream "Wild west mentality"
Nevermind that historical context places Gun Control immediately, chronologically prior to Genocide. The state is the #1 cause of death, and the first and second amendment is our protection against our neighborhoods being invaded by foreign or even our own military forces.
The reason I've started calling the liberal point of view "new worlders" is that they pick and choose which historical context to place most debates. I cannot begin to account for the number of times I've gotten into debates over the use of the term "new world order."
The term is very taboo, among conservatives and liberals. Both "sides" of the debate have agendas that conflict with historical perspective and would write off the Constitutional implications of what they are proposing.
You mention the 10th Amendment and you often get cries about slavery and the Civil War. However, people fail to understand historically that the 10th amendment would have made it easier for southern abolitionists to change their government without going to war if the movement would have been allowed to grow.
When the nation is split on an issue and you place it in a historical aspect as I just have, it's important to look at what might have happened if the tables were turned and what constitutional tools would be available for the moral outcome to have prevailed no matter how the battle was framed.
If it was the Federal Government mandating slavery, Abolitionists would have used the 10th amendment to abolish it in their state, just as many states are trying to do right now with non-violent drug offenses.
The point is, that the people are more likely to change something bad at the state level due to the states being that supreme constitutional barrier between Washington DC and their community.
Most state elected officials are very approachable, with few exceptions, whereas individuals communicating with Federal Representatives often have to do so through their office aids. Not to mention that most persons' homes are closer to their state capitol than the US capitol.
That 10th Amendment was put into place for a reason, the Government that this nation had just broken from was an unaccountable seat too far away for the people to influence.
The New Worlders somehow feel that Federal Government accountability is not an issue when it comes to guaranteeing rights.
Another paradigm I like to shake using the Abolitionist position of the Civil War, is that of "Democracy"
This country is a Republic where regions are represented, not a majority number. What works for a heavy population center like Los Angeles does not work for Central Missouri Farmland.
For this we allow Missouri to make its own laws apart from the federal government and we allow gerrymandering of rural districts to encompass a larger geographical area in order to quantify the rural lifestyle to contrast big city lifestyle in their government.
So over the past century and a half, the face of our country had changed, big industry moved in, huge cities sprung up, and all of a sudden, "wild west thinking" was backwards and extreme. There is no possible way our Founding Fathers could foresee this kind of society!
Wrong! The style of society does not matter, these are rules for how and who should make these policies not which policies are "backwards."
Guidelines for governing a free people, and when we begin questioning those guidelines without questioning what possible side effects it could mean for individual liberties, we are externalizing the power over our freedom to someone we cannot control.
The reason that this "Guns at Obama events" issue is in the news, is that we as a people grew to stop exercising our rights, so we stopped being used to seeing others exercising theirs.
If you need more proof, look at Republicans and Protesters. 2 years ago, Republicans were demonizing protesters as rioters and anarchy, now look at them, they are the elderly and the families. They are also being called "Angry Mobs." They understand the need to feel comfortable in exercising their rights.
Gun owners can bring back a time when merely taking a posture of defense is not looked upon as a symbol of aggression, these are just the correct procedures for working through the growing pains. I applaud these people for not being intimidated by image and perception. I wish more people were doing it.
If you're in an open-carry state, please do. If you aren't, it's time to work on your state legislature to get laws passed like New Hampshire or Arizona.
The "new worlders" as I'll call them, continue to promote that "this isn't the wild west."
This is one of the many comments I hear over and over and over when it comes to the gun debate. When one examines the "wild west," we learn that one of the reasons guns were open-carried was that there was a supreme sense of community, and the community had an understanding that when outsiders would harm the community those armed would be able to defend the town.
This was not merely a time of Bandits and Sheriffs, Shootouts were the exception to the rule, and when they did happen it was often not the Hollywood image you get when liberals scream "Wild west mentality"
Nevermind that historical context places Gun Control immediately, chronologically prior to Genocide. The state is the #1 cause of death, and the first and second amendment is our protection against our neighborhoods being invaded by foreign or even our own military forces.
The reason I've started calling the liberal point of view "new worlders" is that they pick and choose which historical context to place most debates. I cannot begin to account for the number of times I've gotten into debates over the use of the term "new world order."
The term is very taboo, among conservatives and liberals. Both "sides" of the debate have agendas that conflict with historical perspective and would write off the Constitutional implications of what they are proposing.
You mention the 10th Amendment and you often get cries about slavery and the Civil War. However, people fail to understand historically that the 10th amendment would have made it easier for southern abolitionists to change their government without going to war if the movement would have been allowed to grow.
When the nation is split on an issue and you place it in a historical aspect as I just have, it's important to look at what might have happened if the tables were turned and what constitutional tools would be available for the moral outcome to have prevailed no matter how the battle was framed.
If it was the Federal Government mandating slavery, Abolitionists would have used the 10th amendment to abolish it in their state, just as many states are trying to do right now with non-violent drug offenses.
The point is, that the people are more likely to change something bad at the state level due to the states being that supreme constitutional barrier between Washington DC and their community.
Most state elected officials are very approachable, with few exceptions, whereas individuals communicating with Federal Representatives often have to do so through their office aids. Not to mention that most persons' homes are closer to their state capitol than the US capitol.
That 10th Amendment was put into place for a reason, the Government that this nation had just broken from was an unaccountable seat too far away for the people to influence.
The New Worlders somehow feel that Federal Government accountability is not an issue when it comes to guaranteeing rights.
Another paradigm I like to shake using the Abolitionist position of the Civil War, is that of "Democracy"
This country is a Republic where regions are represented, not a majority number. What works for a heavy population center like Los Angeles does not work for Central Missouri Farmland.
For this we allow Missouri to make its own laws apart from the federal government and we allow gerrymandering of rural districts to encompass a larger geographical area in order to quantify the rural lifestyle to contrast big city lifestyle in their government.
So over the past century and a half, the face of our country had changed, big industry moved in, huge cities sprung up, and all of a sudden, "wild west thinking" was backwards and extreme. There is no possible way our Founding Fathers could foresee this kind of society!
Wrong! The style of society does not matter, these are rules for how and who should make these policies not which policies are "backwards."
Guidelines for governing a free people, and when we begin questioning those guidelines without questioning what possible side effects it could mean for individual liberties, we are externalizing the power over our freedom to someone we cannot control.
The reason that this "Guns at Obama events" issue is in the news, is that we as a people grew to stop exercising our rights, so we stopped being used to seeing others exercising theirs.
If you need more proof, look at Republicans and Protesters. 2 years ago, Republicans were demonizing protesters as rioters and anarchy, now look at them, they are the elderly and the families. They are also being called "Angry Mobs." They understand the need to feel comfortable in exercising their rights.
Gun owners can bring back a time when merely taking a posture of defense is not looked upon as a symbol of aggression, these are just the correct procedures for working through the growing pains. I applaud these people for not being intimidated by image and perception. I wish more people were doing it.
If you're in an open-carry state, please do. If you aren't, it's time to work on your state legislature to get laws passed like New Hampshire or Arizona.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
