Categories
Second Amendment

UnAmerican: Red Flag Laws Violate Natural Rights

In the wake of the recent mass shootings, both Donald Trump and certain GOP members are taking action to pass more gun control legislation. Such ‘caving’ on behalf of the party that long protected the inherent right to bear arms—is utterly pathetic!

ARE REPUBLICANS REALLY TURNING THE CORNER ON GUNS?

The aftermath of the recent shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, has been a familiar one, as GOP politicians offer “thoughts and prayers” while paying lip service to the possibility of modest, common-sense gun reforms. But while the typical mass shooting is all too often followed by all rhetoric and no action, could El Paso and Dayton finally flip the script? Politico reports that more Republican lawmakers appear to be ramping up their support for background checks and red flag laws in the wake of the recent weekend of mass shootings, President Donald Trump has signaled his interest in these mild gun control moves, and a majority of lawmakers’ Republican constituents now appear to be on board. “The proximity of the shootings, the Gilroy one … and then El Paso and Dayton, that has galvanized people,” Sen. Susan Collins told Politico. “We’re determined that we take something up.”

Aside from Trump’s past remarks about taking the guns ‘first’ before going to court, a statement he made back in 2018—a true conservative would NEVER say that.

Violating due process is one side of the argument. The other is infringing on the inherent right to keep and bear arms. Hence, the Second Amendment is not what grants you the right to bear arms; it protects the natural right that already exists in nature.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (U.S. Constitution, Amendment II).

The most important word in that sentence runs parallel in the First Amendment, which is “the.” English language uses this three-letter word to denote a commonly understood fact or thing, often in the abstract. Such rhetoric implies a universal objective right to keep and bear arms that does not come from the state. Hence, “the right” to keep and bear arms is derived from humanity as inalienable, and thus “shall not be infringed” by the government.

I am disgusted with President Trump’s handling of this matter. Upon the horrific mass shootings in Texas and South Dakota his reaction was anything but patriotic. GOP members who also pushed for increased background checks and the implementation of red flag laws are also violating their oath, which is dangerous.

If the United States continues compromising its longstanding ideology of self-government and personal sovereignty we will lose individual liberty, and everything that made America free and prosperous will die. The natural rights enshrined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights are related to each other under the same ideology—individual liberty. The negative amendments (“shall not”) restrain the government from usurping abusive control over our lives. They neither give you liberty, but protect the natural liberty that you already have.

The fundamental right to keep and bear arms is the backbone of a free society. Individuals are not truly free without the ability to protect their liberty. They cannot own private property, raise family or live in community without fear if they cannot preserve their livelihood. Our free market capitalist society, which undoubtedly is being crushed by high taxes and systemic regulation, is not possible without self-governing, self-reliant citizens.

This nation became free, affluent and prosperous because our personal liberty laid the path for enormous accomplishments in entrepreneurship and technological innovation. Had we been dependent on the state through its traditional grips of suppressive power over our lives, which is much the case elsewhere in this world, we would not have attained such greatness.

True Purpose of the Second Amendment

The true purpose of the Second Amendment is not about hunting or even criminal defense. It was written to protect your right to retaliate against the GOVERNMENT if it gets taken over by tyrants!

Due Process is Thrown Out the Door

Red flag laws violate the right to bear arms on their face. Not only do they allow confiscation of weapons without the suspect even committing a crime, but they strip the person from the right to contest in court—before a crime even takes place.

Spin it how you want, but red flag laws are the opposite of due process protected by the Fifth Amendment. Here, a defendant is being deprived of personal property based on “accusations” by others that the person might be a threat. We already have a system in place for potential dangers. If someone is showing obvious signs of premeditation to commit a crime, then probable cause exists. Hence, prosecutors can simply get a warrant and arrest the suspect via police.

There is not need to have additional complex laws which give more power to the state to incriminate someone based on mere accusations that the person is a threat. There must be material evidence before action can be taken.


Categories
Sociology

California Can Have the Madness, I’m Done

I am absolutely sick and tired of the Peoples Republic of California, the socialist multicultural nightmare that used to be a coveted place. Though California is still beautiful, and not all conditions are detestable, it has gone downhill substantially from an economic, cultural, and moral standpoint.

I’ve lived here in the Golden State for over two years now in San Diego County. Having come from Boston and greater New England, my snobbiness for high standards and low tolerance for morons never wanes. I completely abhor some of the inhabitants of this place. Though laziness, stupidity, and multicultural nightmares sweep much of this nation’s coastal cities, I find a particular form of attitude among many Southern Californians. However, this is mostly the transplants, which is a fair few. In other words, I have met many native Californians who have lived here their whole lives, and depending on their socioeconomic level, they’re usually of good nature, high work ethic, and moral character.

Nevertheless, this is a minority. I find a slew of trashy, unkept properties down here, with people who either own or rent homes that have junk hanging around in their yards. The pathetic standards of low-class filth are truly detestable to one with New England values.

Talk about trashy homes, filthy neighborhoods, and a “zombie apocalypse”—Southern California has a mix of everyone in its overpopulation. This is mainly in San Diego County though, in the sector of low socioeconomic class apart from the million dollar McMansions in gated communities along with other coastal-bordering establishments. The upper-class are either arrogant snots or benevolent people, but I’ve seen lots of empty-spirited scumbags who happen to be rich.

Why is Southern California Full of Lazy Low-Lifes?

Southern California has attracted the average pleasure-seeker from around the world. Yet, as is the case with human nature, people are lazy, greedy, and self-centered. Only the virtuous overcome the tendency to take the path of least resistance, meaning they become financially independent. Thus “average” today in America is broke, uneducated, unhealthy, and stupid. If you want to be successful and do something worthwhile with your life you have to be different from the rest. You must consciously choose not to do what the others do whether you feel like it or not.

When I observe the people in California, aside from what’s left of the White middle class, I see low-lifes everywhere, especially in San Diego County. Orange County, nonetheless, has a better class of people with a stronger work ethic. You can see this just by driving around and seeing the public at stores, shopping malls, and the beach. It’s cleaner there, with better quality streets and neighborhoods of residents who actually give a care what their yard looks like (you won’t find clutter and trash in the yard).

I don’t want to sound negative, but I have to speak this out. It’s true. I have gotten confirmation just from talking to other locals about this topic. They agree, with statements such as “There’s no culture here,” “Do you miss Boston?,” and “Northern Californians have a negative attitude toward southern Californians.” These are a few of the many comments I’ve received from interacting with others.

The Laws are Tyrannical and Oppressive

People don’t care about their liberty in California like they do in Texas, for example. California is full of domesticated ‘sheeple’ who value pleasure over personal liberty and lower taxes—but have neither because their socialist state treats them like Soviet masses. It sounds cynical, but it’s true. I am disgusted at much of the attitudes I have encountered from locals around here. The typical “leftist” persona is that of a space-shot who lives in a world of make believe. They have no sympathy for people who work hard to earn their keep, and their sense of virtues and moral character is lacking. Of course, this is not everybody, but as a trend I have noticed such people here.

There are plenty of red-state Californians here, but most are away from the cities. Because they have the weaker vote, the morons of Slavelandia Metropolis keep the dirty politicians in office.

Categories
Healthcare

There is No Fundamental Right to Healthcare Insurance

Healthcare by way of insurance companies providing medical coverage in exchange for payment plans is a privilege that must be earned by the individual. Private companies exist to make a profit in this free-market, laissez-fair economy that we call the American Republic. The United States became prosperous and affluent because individual liberty enabled capitalism to thrive. Hard working entrepreneurs built companies that served others in exchange for compensation. People always chose where to buy health insurance by shopping in the private insurance marketplace. Hence, they took responsibility for their lives by earning a living to pay for their coverage out of free will. All the while, the U.S. government was largely removed from this equation because it maintained its long-held duty of protecting personal freedom in a capitalist system—not insurance company profits.

The American people saw the damaging effects of Obamacare once it took root in 2013-14. Thousands of individuals lost their ideal coverage plans unique to their circumstance, and business owners suffered heavy financial burdens by having to cover employees with government-mandated plans in order to comply with the law. Therefore, the agenda for state-regulated healthcare for everyone is absurd.

The Modern Climate of “Healthcare is a Right”

This myth held by the progressive left is a flaw in reasoning that endangers the American people. It threatens the strength and vitality of a society built on virtues of hard labor, personal responsibility, and personal stewardship. Technological innovation in medical science is a result of these qualities. When people demand that the government care for them by providing free healthcare, someone still has to pay for the treatment.

If it’s not the individual paying for her own medical appointments—it’s the taxpayers. The government does not earn money. The only money it has is what it TAKES from us. If Congress passed a law for universal healthcare to everyone it would draw higher taxes from the population in the form of new programs and policies.

This financial burden would be felt in another way on the taxpayer whether through gas tax, income tax, tolls, sales tax, etc. Pick your poison. In other words, you’re going to pay one way or another—because nothing in life comes with a free lunch!

There is a ripple-out effect on imposing free “healthcare for all” that is not the least bit desirable. Everyone will suffer in one way or another because the economy is fundamentally connected. Jobs only exist because there are needs. People want to earn money, and so they work as doctors or medical engineers in fields that directly affect healthcare. People get sick and need to see the doctor. Someone has to pay the doctor’s bill, and the money has to come from somewhere. This simple math is both logic and common sense, which democratic socialists seem to deny.

Not only will a socialist healthcare system put enormous strain on business owners (i.e. Obamacare), but it will adversely affect the field of medical science by hindering advancement in innovation.

Stifling Medical Science and Innovation

In a socialist healthcare system, the reason scientific ingenuity is at stake is because the means of production are at the whims of the state. All creative efforts to improve medical equipment and hospital technology are stifled by congressional regulation, which always finds ways to impose limits, thus slowing down progress and innovation. Government moves at a very slow speed toward improving or developing anything because its very nature is to suppress through coercion.

This affects both profits and the volition to engineer more qualitative technologies. For example, if the state governs medical equipment prices, and what does and does not get admitted into use in the healthcare industry, the incentive to innovate will wane.

No one wants to build something if a cap-limit is imposed on how much the biomedical company, for example, can charge for the product’s redistribution into hospitals or laboratories. The flexibility to come up with new methods of practice and technologies stiffen when the government owns the means of production. Big Brother must approve of almost every new idea and the price at which it is sold.

Think about it, if the government virtually owns and controls the healthcare industry by guaranteeing every American coverage—you better believe they will have a say in the technology used, the industry pricing, and the salaries paid to doctors. Before researching this I naturally assumed that universal healthcare would have a binding domination over all healthcare economic factors. Then, I stumbled across this article:

In our messy and fragmented mix of public and private health care there is no effective leverage to put in place good but painful ideas. Government might manage to implement some of them, but only after a long and difficult fight. The private sector has never shown much capacity to do so and, with its market philosophy, it would surely resist government’s efforts to impose cost control mechanisms.

Universal care is the only tried and effective way to control costs. The European health care systems do so effectively by means of a strong government hand. They use—among other tools—price controls, negotiated physician fees, hospital budgets with limits on expenditures, and stringent policies on the adoption and diffusion of new technologies. The net result is that they keep annual cost increase within the 3–4% range, have better health outcomes than we do, and achieve all of this at significantly less cost. With the exception of the United Kingdom and Italy, there is little rationing and there are no waiting lists for care.

Health Care Costs and Medical Technology | The Hastings Center

Government-Run Healthcare Focuses on the Collective and Disregards the Individual

Socialism of any degree among any sector hampers production. It destroys the volition to work because the government controls the incentives to make higher profits. Doctors will have to settle for the limits imposed on them by legislation. The consequences of socialist healthcare would fundamentally change how medical technology is used. It would place less value on the individual and instead focus on the greatest number of people. This utilitarian model glorifies collective welfare, thus depriving personal liberty and the duty to take responsibility.

Small Businesses Suffer Greatly

We already saw the austere conditions among companies that underwent changes when the Affordable Care Act rolled out. Mandatory healthcare coverage was imposed on employers to cover their employees if the workforce quota size was met. This immoral regulation can be likened to a mafia infiltrating a group of people, making them pay out money against their will—to avoid being fined or eventually thrown in jail. In this case, the motive behind mandatory healthcare infers that somehow people have a right to receive medical treatment at the expense of their employer, and more broadly, the American taxpayer.

The central argument I make throughout this article is that you do indeed have a right to healthcare; that is, if you earn it. You do not have a right to receive healthcare insurance that you didn’t pay for. Such collectivist redistribution is theft whether in the form of medical coverage, education, food stamps, etc. None of these products or services are free. Somebody has to pay for them, and ultimately it’s you and I.

The Purpose of Government is Not Redistribution

Regardless of how you color it, collectivism and redistribution of wealth is THEFT by coercion. Government is supposed to protect liberty according to the notion that natural rights exist. The true purpose of government can be likened to the immune system in the body, which is to protect the health and vitality of the organism. The immune system does not provide nutrition via minerals, vitamins, or macronutrients. It simply destroys pathogens and wounds through the production of antibodies, inflammation, and regulation of temperature.

It is a person’s responsibility to choose (out of free will) to eat healthy, exercise, and get enough sleep. This is the beauty of free will. We are at liberty to do as we please, but also reap the consequences of our actions.

We as individuals are governed by the dictates of conscience. Having awareness of our decision’s aftermath inclines us to be more mindful and make better choices, qualities that ought be instilled from a young age.

A mother teaches her son to clean up after himself, do his homework, and brush his teeth. She instills in him a sense of personal responsibility that carries into adulthood. This wisdom prevents him from making stupid decisions down the line. In addition she is training him to be autonomous and independent rather than reliant on her for the rest of his adult life.

It is not the parents’ job to look after their children once they are full grown. Similarly, it is not the government’s duty to look after the citizen’s welfare concerning healthcare or any other form of personal responsibility.

The idea of imposing universal healthcare for all—via collectivism and redistribution—is utterly moronic. It presumes that adult citizens lack the intelligence to take care of themselves, and also assumes that they are incapable. Welfare handouts, whether in the form of free education, food stamps or medicare, lower the standard of personal responsibility by treating people like dependent children.

Therefore, universal healthcare for all is immoral because it denies the mature obligation to look after oneself. Treating people like incapable children by spoiling them with freebees produces a society of irresponsible adults who never grew up.

Conclusion on the Right to Healthcare

Furthermore, while there is indeed a fundamental right healthcare per se, there is no fundamental right to healthcare insurance. In a free market economy the individual is sovereign, and not the collective. A person can earn the money to fund a personal healthcare coverage plan. An individual has natural rights to pursue life, liberty and happiness. This includes the ability to maintain one’s health to the fullest degree.

However, Medicare-for-all provided by the government is a socialist model that undermines the sovereignty of the individual because it shifts value away from the individual and onto the collective. Universal healthcare discourages the advancement of medical technology because the government-run system throttles spending by controlling medical equipment prices and doctor’s salaries. In effect, the overall quality of service and technology suffers as a result. Therefore, universal healthcare for all is an ineffective agenda that is destined to fail.

Categories
Foreign Policy

Why Would Service Members Support Donald Trump?

A U.S. military squadron was reported to have bought unit patches for their uniforms with a depiction of Trump and the slogan “Make Aircrew Great Again.” Glenn Beck’s BlazeTV emphasized how the media is not happy with troops supporting their own commander-in-chief. However, many service members might be fed up with this president. Under the USMJ, the military is to remain neutral concerning support for a political office. They simply do what they are told and obey orders without question. Thus not everyone who wears a uniform is happy with the decisions of Washington D.C., which is why they leave.

Why Support a President Who Takes You to Irrelevant Foreign Wars?

Donald Trump can behave like a contradicting lunatic. He said on the campaign trail that Iraq was a mistake, and supported the extraction of troops from the Middle East, but people he appoints such as John Bolton, talk him into staying. President Trump raves about how great the service members are, which really is code for: “You’re doing our dirty work by keeping the empire alive by your blood and sacrifice.” This may sound cruel, but I say it in good conscience. It’s the truth. We are not fighting wars for our own national defense or security. I served in the Marine Corps for six years and went to Iraq. I woke up around 2012 by seeing how corrupt the DoD and Washington is, and never regretted resigning my commission.

I don’t care what people think of me. The way I speak about the military, police and politicians in this country is far from the facade of apple pie, Memorial Day and the waving of flags. I am honestly disgusted at the state of our nation. The culture especially is sick. This includes the service members, many of which share interventionist foreign policy sentiments fueled by their neoconservative parents and the war machine propaganda in the media. For example, I remember speaking with a young lieutenant in Quantico, VA, once while discussing the Syrian conflict in 2012. He responded that Washington D.C. should just “send us” over there to straighten it out. Sure, kid—we are the ultimate police and protector of Planet Earth (NOT!).

No, I do NOT support the troops going over to Afghanistan and staying for 17 years, causing “blowback” (a CIA term) by angering radical extremists to commit terrorist acts over here. Yes, I support the military in its defensive role, protecting the nation and its constitution, but the overwhelming majority of what our troops do today is police the world which makes the United States LESS SAFE. American interventionism is a poisonous cancer.

Donald Trump’s Ridiculous Policies

President Trump is a businessman, His policies resemble a corporate enterprise that are not appropriate for the White House. His tariffs and doing deals with foreign nations only works to a degree. Trump is not a constitutionalist because he lacks the fundamental ideologies to keep the troops home and protect our own soil. He appointed some extremely sick people in his cabinet. Why are service members making patches on their uniforms, using their own money to promote an authoritarian who makes friends with dictators in China and North Korea, who makes filthy weapons deals with Saudi Arabia in a kind, diplomatic way? It’s because Donald Trump is a complete fool. So no, I don’t support him.

The Donald Trump Cult

There is a term out there known as “Trump derangement syndrome,” representing those who detest the president and cannot seem to stop protesting about it. I have a counter term, “Pro-Trump derangement syndrome.” This describes the avid supports who will chew you out at virtually any criticism of Donald Trump—as if he was God. Such type of stupid allegiance is similar to the sentiments toward a dictator among the people. When socialist, fascist and communist regimes rise to power the people’s initial support is nearly unquestionable endorsement. It isn’t until the inner working become known that the people revolt, but then it’s too late. Such is the sad state of affairs with many of the right-wing so-called “conservatives” who claim to uphold the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Not exactly. Trump recently considered banning firearm silencers at an interview with Piers Morgan in England—a very slippery slope.

Leaving the USMC in 2012

I could hardly wait for the day my contract ended and I was officially discharged (honorably), so that I could start speaking out against the president and Congress. I support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the ideologies of the Founding based on Natural Law. I do NOT support the American Empire. This is hard to take among many, and they do not understand my sentiment, being a former Marine. Some think there are serious problems with me in the way I think. Regardless of what they assume, they are wrong. They are ignorant, and I do not have to explain myself to the simple.

Lt Chris Nawojczyk, USMC wearing green cammies at TBS in Quantico, Virginia.
Lt Chris Nawojczyk, USMC wearing green cammies at TBS in Quantico, Virginia.

There is something wrong with the ignorance in our society. The simple-mindedness is very irritating. Some presume that I am on the left after hearing me criticize Trump. I am NOT. Democrats and Republicans are equally wicked—yes WICKED. I don’t use my words lightly. I mean what I say, and the fact most Americans hardly know how to READ it is not surprising they jump to novice conclusion about my political persuasion. If I explained myself it would take about five minutes, but they still would not understand. I am too complex for such a low IQ populous.

I am pro-life, pro-gun, and pro-market. I am a capitalist, yet one who advocates for removing the welfare state and the initiative to build a wall at the southern border. If we adhered to the godly principles of personal stewardship and personal sovereignty that both demand responsibility, the ideal economic, social and cultural consequences would amount. There would be no need for a wall.

I uphold the idea of having a military that is 100 percent committed to national DEFENSE. As similar to Switzerland’s militia which never got attacked during WWII and neither faces radical jihad threats, the United States could be a true “city on a hill” that serves as a model of Virtue to the rest of the world.

Every extended military engagement since WWII has been legally unconstitutional because Congress did not vote. In order to send troops into combat for an extended period of time the House of Representatives must approve. This rests on the premise that the People control the large decisions of our country. The president can only activate the military for immediate response due to national security being at stake. However, to persist in sending more troops to a given location, with a Pentagon budget that keeps growing, is unlawful and immoral.

It is immoral because it undermines the people’s ability to control their own destiny, and that of their children who sign up. The tax placed on the American people from going to war is familial, economic, cultural, and one that affects national security. If you don’t like going to airports and having the TSA ‘feel’ you, as well as the annoying checkpoint lines, it’s because the USA has gotten into foreign affairs that was none of its business. When George Washington warned against “foreign entanglements” in his Farewell Address, he spoke something into history for which neocons ought to take note.

Facing Backlash for Opposing Trump

The multitude of Trump supporters who attack me for criticizing his character and policies seem to suffer from the same case of cognitive dissonance as the left. When Obamacare was passed, for example, we on the right were seen as hateful, racist people who didn’t care about those who can’t afford medical coverage. However, they could not put two-and-two together—logic went out the door. When giving reasons why the ACA was bankrupting the economy by destroying small business and taking unique coverage plans away from many Americans, they simply could knowledge the facts. Similarly, people with “pro-Trump derangement syndrome” boastfully wear their MAGA hats and demonize me for saying Trump does not support limited government nor much of the Constitution—because he doesn’t.

See Also:

American Madness in The Trump Era (with Video)

Categories
Freedom of Speech

Julian Assange Indicted by Federalist Trump Administration

The authoritarian Trump administration, which relishes centralized power, indicted Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange with 17 counts under the Espionage Act for disseminating classified information received from military and diplomatic documents. Though a regular practice among journalists, prosecuting one for exposing war crimes obtained from a third-party source is the very purpose of the press. This event is similar to the gross abuse of government power that occurred under President John Adams and the Federalists upon the Founding, known as the Alien and Sedition Acts. Here, the First Amendment is being VIOLATED and I shall not keep quiet.

Exclusive: Julian Assange’s Attorney Decries Espionage Charges as “Grave Threat to Press Freedom” | Democracy Now!

In an unprecedented move, the Justice Department has indicted WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on 17 charges of violating the Espionage Act for his role in publishing U.S. classified military and diplomatic documents exposing U.S. war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. The documents were leaked by U.S. Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning. The Espionage Act of 1917 has never been used to prosecute a journalist or media outlet. The new charges come just over a month after British police forcibly removed Assange from the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, where he took asylum in 2012. Initially the Trump administration indicted Assange on a single count of helping Manning hack a government computer, but Assange faces up to 170 additional years in prison under the new charges—10 years for each count of violating the Espionage Act. We speak with Jennifer Robinson, an attorney for Julian Assange. “It is a grave threat to press freedom and should be cause for concern for journalists and publishers everywhere,” Robinson says.

CHRISTOPHER NAWOJCZYK: This is disgusting! Journalists have long acted identical to Wikileaks by obtaining information from third-party sources to then publish for mass awareness. The United States government indicted Assange with 17 charges of violating the Espionage Act for publishing classified DoD information that revealed gross war crimes by U.S. troops.

The Espionage Act has never been used to prosecute a journalist or media outlet since its inception in 1917. Why is the federal government acting so differently than it has in times past? Because authoritarians have taken control and the deep state is firmly established. The fictional warnings of George Orwell’s 1984 have come true in the USA, and our resistant outcry against it was not strong enough. We are dealing with a flagrant, insidious group of people in the so-called “establishment.” This includes Donald Trump, his cabinet, and much of the Executive bureaucracies that act covertly with special interests behind closed doors.

This indictment against Assange is a threat to the fundamental tenets of journalism, which has a longstanding reputation of being the Fourth Estate or fourth power. Freedom of speech (and of the press) has long been a “check” to the possibility of the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch gaining too much power and not being stopped by the other two. The People have both a fundamental right and a DUTY to exercise resistance against any regime of state power that overreaches its bounds to the extent of infringing our natural rights. The United States government is supposed to be predicated on the “consent of the governed”—why are we being so apathetic?

Thus in relation to the outrageous nature of the Trump administration’s indictment of Julian Assange—a non U.S. citizen journalist from Australia—Trump’s dictatorial and authoritative essence is similar to John Adams and the Federalists in their passing of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Here is a brief overview of what happened.

The Alien and Sedition Acts

The Federalists’ Alien and Sedition Acts under President John Adams

During the only four-year term of President John Adams, his Federalist Party enacted four laws abridging the speech rights of American citizens and the status of new immigrants. Despite intense opposition and an uphill battle by the Republican-minority in Congress, the Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition Acts and President Adams singed them into law on July 14, 1798.

Moreover, the Acts were ludicrous because the United States had just fought a war with Great Britain over these and other tenets of freedom. The Federalists’ Acts were utter violations of the First Amendment which also offended the spirit of American conscience concerning immigration and the virtue of welcoming foreigners seeking liberty. Thus the Federalists’ reasons for passing these laws were shallow and void of principle in regards to individual liberty and freedom of expression.

The Alien and Sedition Acts were passed by the Federalist-controlled Congress to protect national security against foreign spies or those seeking to undermine the sovereignty of the United States. A long train of events led to this egregious legislation by Congress, starting with the innocent Jay Treaty under George Washington.

Potential War with France

Famous painting of General George Washington by John Trumbull.
Famous painting of General George Washington by John Trumbull.

In 1794, President Washington negotiated the Jay Treaty with England to resolve unsettled differences of commerce, navigation, and gain amity with its former sovereign since the War for Independence. France, being at odds with England due to its own national conflicts, frowned upon this diplomatic agreement. When John Adams won the election in 1796, he sent diplomats to France to foster peace and diplomacy.

However, the new French leaders who sprung to power after its own internal affair, the French Revolution, were reluctant to welcome the Americans with open arms. France assigned three unnamed representatives known as X, Y and Z to meet covertly with the U.S. diplomats (aka. “the XYZ affair”). Mr. X made bribes for $10,000 to begin negotiations. When the Americans refused, they were threatened with “the power and violence of France.” The response by many Federalists was to quickly declare war on France. President Adams, however, declined and instead proposed making preparations for war using a land tax to pay for them.

Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party of Opposition

Meanwhile, Thomas Jefferson’s opposing party, the Republicans (aka. Democratic-Republicans or Jeffersonians), were furious with the Federalists’ adamant “war fever.” Alexander Hamilton led the Federalists, and a heated feud persisted between the two men since the inception of the Constitution. Federalists wanted a strong and secure government that ensured trade, commerce and capital enterprise among prosperous citizens. Though nothing is inherently wrong with this sentiment, it lacks the fundamental virtue of upholding principles of individual liberty and self-government without compromise.

Thus Hamilton’s Federalists can be likened to the pro-capitalist, national security agenda of today’s GOP Republicans. Modern Republicans stand for free market and national defense, but often go to extremes by violating privacy in exchange for security, and waging global wars for special interests and empire domination.

In contrast, Jefferson’s Republican Party cared more for the tenets of individual liberty and decentralized, limited government. They spoke more for the common working person, the poor, and newly arrived immigrants. Although Democratic-Republicans were the forerunner of today’s Democratic Party, both Republicans and Democrats of today share little in common with the two original parties of Jefferson and Hamilton. Though today’s Democrats and Republicans stand for some original qualities of constitutional law, both are incomplete—with serious violations on natural rights in one way or another.

Furthermore, neither France nor the United States ever declared war, but in preparation of such conflict President Adams proposed DRACONIAN laws that utterly violated the First Amendment to the Constitution, to say the least. In wake of these events, the Federalists accused Thomas Jefferson’s Republicans of being a traitorous “French Party.” A Federalist newspaper wrote, “He that is not for us, is against us,” which unsurprisingly sounds similar to George W. Bush’s statement during the Iraq War, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” Thus Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) was a preposterous waste of American lives, money, and national reputation—a war sold to the public on LIES.

Breakdown of the Alien and Sedition Acts

In an attempt to make the United States more safe and also weaken Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party, the Federalist-held Congress passed four laws that severely violated the rights of American people. Former President Washington backed the Federalists’ passing of these acts, which is one of the few instances where I frown on George Washington.

(1) The Naturalization Act: extended the time immigrants had to live in the United States before becoming citizens from five to fourteen years. The federal government never enforced this law during the four years of its enactment, but used would have impeded the growth of Jefferson’s party which attracted the sentiment of immigrants.

(2) The Alien Enemies Act: on the condition that war is declared, all male citizens of an enemy nation could be arrested, detained and deported. If used, this Act could have expelled the 25,000 French citizens living in the United States. Like the Naturalization Act and due to war not being declared, this Act was neither used.

(3) The Alien Friends Act: authorized the president to deport any non-citizen for allegations of plotting against the U.S. government whether in wartime or peacetime. The law was limited to two years, and though never used it could have resulted in the mass expulsion of newly arrived immigrants who never gained citizenship before fourteen years.

(4) The Sedition Act: directly targeted those who spoke contemptuous words against the government and its decisions. This law deliberately attacked those of Thomas Jefferson’s party who held strong objections to the Federalists. Essentially, “sedition” means speech or conduct that incites others to rebel against lawful authority of the state or monarch.

English common law practiced the doctrine of “seditious libel” which prohibited almost any criticism of the king or his officials. The tradition held that any spoken or written words that found defect with His Majesty’s government sabotaged the respect of the people for his authority. Basically, “rebel-rousing” might instigate mass distain for authority among British subjects, thus causing a revolt.

First, the U.S. Sedition Act outlawed any conspiracies “to oppose any measure or measures of the government.” The Act made it a crime to express “any false, scandalous and malicious writing” against the Congress or the president. Unsurprisingly, the Act did not make the vice-president immune from prosecution—who happened to be Jefferson—only Congress and the president.

Thus additional language prohibited any language or spoken words that had “bad intent” to “defame” the government or instigate the people to develop “hatred” toward it. The speech restrictions of the Sedition Act were more explicitly defined than that of the seditious libel doctrine of English common law. Nonetheless they were strong enough to punish anyone who contemptuously spoke out against the government. If this is not a violation of free speech in the First Amendment, then I don’t know what is.

The Sedition Act’s ‘Truth’ Defense

Unlike English common law, the Sedition Act allowed for “the truth of the matter” to be a defense, and let the jury decide if a defendant had “bad intent.” Penalties ranged from six months to five years depending on violations of certain provisions, and a fine of up to $5,000 (more than $100,000 of today’s currency).

Alleged Reasons for the Alien and Sedition Acts

A painting of President John Adams (1735-1826), 2nd president of the United States, by Asher B. Durand (1767-1845).
A painting of President John Adams (1735-1826), 2nd president of the United States, by Asher B. Durand (1767-1845).

Rumors amounted of a French invasion and the threat of being intercepted by French spies. Consequently, President Adams declared that adverse foreign influence within the United States was dangerous and needed to be “exterminated.” Not only was there fear of foreign spies but also the possibility of domestic allegiance to France among Americans. Jefferson’s Republicans were opposed to the Federalists’ warmongering sentiment—similar to the Trump administration’s attitude toward foreign intervention. Trump himself, Mike Pompeo, and John Bolton have an aggressive sentiment of American exceptionalism.

The Jeffersonians supported in part the French Revolution’s cause. They saw it as a revolt against tyrannical monarchy to restore democracy and rights among the people of France. Nonetheless, John Adams and the Federalists detested the French Revolution as a brutish, anarchical regime. Being strong upholders of centralized government power, they saw it as a cause unworthy of support. These differences between Federalists and anti-Federalists are similar to the opposing views among Democrats and Republicans of today. That said, from an objectivist approach, one is right and the other is wrong.

There is indeed an ideal and just way to govern a nation. Our Constitution was meant “for a moral and religious people” in the words of John Adams himself. Nevertheless, his policies surely contradicted such a statement because freedom of speech (the First Amendment) exists to protect unpopular, offensive speech. Moral and religious or not, we are imperfect humans with differing morals, ethics, and cultural views. The very notion of explicitly protecting expression exists because not everyone is going to like what another thinks or says. This includes the government’s opinion of a protesting critic. Thus, freedom of speech and “of the press” safeguards us from the government and not a private entity.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

—John Adams

Apparently, to Adams and the Federalists the Alien and Sedition Acts did not violate the First Amendment, which reads:

Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992)

Amendment I

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.

A simple reading of this text is comprehendible to the average person. To claim that the First Amendment is not being abridged amid laws that thwart the free exercise of speech is insidious. Imposing any government law that limits the press or personal expression for any reason runs counter to the reason the First Amendment was enacted—to protect the People from their government! However, the Adams administration thought otherwise.

The Alien and Sedition Acts provoked heated debates in state legislatures between Federalists and Republicans over freedom of speech and the press. James Madison wrote in a resolution for the Virginia legislature that the Sedition Act undermined the “right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people.” In contrast, legislators in Federalist-dominated Massachusetts responded that a sedition law was “wise and necessary” to thwart secret attacks by foreign or domestic enemies.

The Federalists in Congress promoted an Old English common law version of free speech that was much weaker. This approach did not protect people from making false or malicious statements against the government, but only limited the censoring of speech made beforehand that did not spark offense and controversy.

Republican John Nichols of Virginia argued against this Federalist approach by asserting that citizens need a free and accessible ability to learn facts and knowledge about their government leaders in order to elect and judge them while serving in office. He questioned why government ought have the power to punish citizens and the press over what they say while informing the voters.

This lengthy debate came to a close in 1800 when the people elected Thomas Jefferson as President of the United States, with a Republican-majority in Congress. He immediately repealed the Alien and Sedition Acts and stated in his inaugural address a revised definition of free speech, that Americans have the right “to think freely and to speak and write what they think.”

How the Alien and Sedition Acts Relate to the Trump Administration’s Handling of Assange

Founder of Wikileaks Julian Assange wearing black suit and red tie.
Founder of Wikileaks Julian Assange.

Since the United States Constitution was ratified over 220 years ago, our nation has struggled against internal tyrants threatening the very ideology that founded our country. The Bill of Rights are explicit enough to cover some fundamental natural rights based on the principles of individuality, personal sovereignty, private property, privacy, and presumption of innocence.

However, George Washington said “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence,—it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” He as alluding to the fact that imperfect people make up government, and although we have checks and balances in our constitutional republic, corrupt people will always exist in public office who we must watch out for. It is the duty of the people to vigilantly guard their liberty by exercising their rights and rising up to oppose anyone that threatens them.

The Trump administration is treating Julian Assange like a sworn member of an Executive cabinet who violated his oath to the Constitution and the laws of a federal agency (i.e. FBI, CIA, etc.). Assange is neither a U.S. citizen nor someone who works directly for the U.S. government. He is a journalist who likely received the classified information from an undisclosed source in the federal bureaucracy, Russian operatives, or both. Hence, journalists have always received such sensitive knowledge, and published it for public intelligence. THIS IS THE PURPOSE OF THE PRESS and FREEDOM OF SPEECH: to protect the citizenry’s right to expose corruption and evil, and bring it to the light of day.

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz linked Assange’s indictment with the atrocities of the Alien and Sedition Acts, and highlighted the Trump administration’s imitation of the Nixon administration who once chose not to indict The New York Times; nevertheless, today’s Justice Department did.

See Also:

Trump Should be Ridiculed if U.S. Extradites Assange | The Boston Factor

Alien and Sedition Acts

Adams signs Naturalization Act: June 18, 1798

The Alien and Sedition Acts: Defining American Freedom

Categories
Government

American Madness in The Trump Era

There is much to be said about the election of President Donald Trump in 2016. Many conservatives who voted for him, including the evangelicals, only did so because of the pathetic options they had. It was either Hillary or Trump—you choose. Do you want a president who will try taking your Second Amendment right away, leaving you helpless as a disarmed victim of government authoritarian oppression, or a president who will protect that right?

Do you want a president who will mock the sanctity of life in the womb by supporting Planned Parenthood’s immoral crime of abortion, or one who will respect the infant in a woman’s body, with natural rights to life despite being defenseless? How about choosing someone for the Supreme Court? Obviously a Democrat like Hillary Clinton would have appointed some leftist judge to become a Justice in the Court, only to disregard the fundamentals of U.S. constitutional law, which places the individual above the state?

What about business regulation and the health of the free market? Do you want a president who will support small business and the vital requirements to be free from the shackles of big government control, or one who will strengthen the already-suffocating choke hold the government has on small businesses as the grasp for air in their struggle to grow amid the red tape?

Bottom Line: It’s Not that Simple

What I have just described is a dumbed-down, cookie cutter version of a novice political analyst. Rather, a sophisticated approach comprehends the sum of issues threatening our freedom and prosperity, and finds solutions based on principle.

The Reality of American Politics and the Grassroots

American politics is in a state of total disaster. Average people are fed up with so much, they don’t know how to have civil discourse anymore. Conservatives are ushered out of restaurants because of protesters who aggressively barge in to disrupt their dinner, which they rightfully paid for. Many business establishments that house such patrons often refuse to do business with those of an opposing political view. However, this refusal to associate or do business is their natural right, protected by the First Amendment.

Freedom of speech, the option to associate upon discretion, and private property are rights that go hand-in-hand. However, there is an ideological war over whether that is constitutional or something that should be tolerated.

Liberal Expression and Right of Association

Free expression and the decision to associate or disassociate interlinks with the natural levels of private property: (1) one’s mind and body (intellectual, moral or religious, and corporeal), (2) personal goods or “chattel,” and (3) real property (land or real estate). Personal sovereignty encompasses the self-governance of one’s property, starting with the mind and conscience.

This view is a hardcore libertarian one based on natural rights. It blatantly opposes the agenda of inclusion and other socialist mindsets based on the denial of an individual right to personal sovereignty. Such a statement will easily land me in hot water among the so-called “left” because it allows for discrimination and rejection, of anyone for any reason. Hence many Republicans would not agree with me either.

That said, I have morals and believe the Natural Law, which includes consequences for one’s actions based on the principle of sowing and reaping. No matter what you do with your personal liberty, there are aftermaths of cause-and-effect that follow whether favorable or not. For example, as a non-fundamentalist Christian I oppose racism, which is the belief that one race has a moral right to rule over or subjugate another for labor or service. This is immoral because it violates the natural principles of personal sovereignty and individual liberty, which are “blind” to skin color or ethnic origin.

Nonetheless, racism is not the act of being prejudice. If you are attracted to a certain kind of ethnic group (perhaps your own) and you want to marry one, have friendships with them, and have them as your neighbors while excluding the rest, there is nothing racial about that. You are simply honoring your sincere desires and attractions. Nevertheless, the radical left wants to impose blanket denial of all ethical and racial differences, making us think we are merely numbers in a communist framework for the utilitarian common good.

Collectivism is the antithesis of diversity in humanity because it asserts that an individual’s likes and dislikes or cultural traditions are dangerous if they lead to societal division. Such hypocrisy contradicts the alleged push for inclusion and diversity that progressives so passionately work to achieve.

These two aforementioned words are at odds with each other though, because an authentically diverse culture cannot exist if everyone is “included” amid the group. True diversity only exists when there are opposing views, beliefs, or cultural practices that allow for walls of separation between them. This means “coexistence” only works when each faction leaves the other alone, respecting their differences without threat of harm or interference.

Only opinions and mindsets that lead to the common good of the collective as a whole are accepted. This utilitarian doctrine strips the beauty from society by undermining individuality. Likewise, the collectivist model has been tried several times throughout human history—and has FAILED every time. The Soviet Union fell in 1991, and we all know what happened to the Nazis in their push for national socialism. The communist or socialist regimes that still exist today (North Korea, China, Venezuela, etc.) are a horror show of mass poverty, starvation, and utter tyranny by oppressive governments.

Moreover, socialism and communism are merely the same thing, with socialism being the alleged first stage toward the later. Karl Marx had a philosophy that society would go through phases, in which capitalism would be tried and reach its peak, and then ultimately collapse on itself. This would open the door to a socialist system that would further collectivize the people, setting them on the road toward the ultimate utopian goal of a communist society.

The deception in this train of thought omits the fact that government always becomes authoritarian and abusive in a socialist system. It owns the means of production and redistributes wealth and resources to the collective. The state has all the power and makes the decisions for how each person should live, denying them of self-determination, individual identity, and the free ability to give and share voluntarily without coercion. However, free-market capitalism solves all three dilemmas.

Only capitalism restores freedom and prosperity and eliminates poverty. This is because the right to choose how to live one’s life must be honored as sacred. Personal sovereignty is embedded in the framework of all human beings. We were created with natural rights that must be respected. We must take accountability and responsibility for our actions and chose to act based on conscience rather than coercion.

Trump Supporters are Often Simple-Minded and Gullible

Many supporters of President Trump are ignorant followers with little knowledge of constitutional law. Since the campaign trail they have jumped on to the Trump bandwagon with almost blind obedience. I distinctively remember having conversions with some of these people on social media or actual life. They almost instantly demonized me for criticizing the character of Donald Trump, sometimes to the point of slewing ad hominem attacks. This was pretty pathetic.

Such people are dumbed-down from a continuous barrage of propaganda of American exceptionalism from both the Christian-right and the neoconservative Republican Party of glyphosate-laden apple pie with a misconstrued understanding of George Washington. I am being facetious, but with a point. The concept of American patriotism has changed over the centuries, especially after the Civil War’s Reconstruction Era. More recently, the rise of Evangelism as well as the waves of feminism and Marxist-style leftism have shaken the original foundations of what it means to be an American.

The rise of the police state since the September 11th attacks of 2001 began with intense protests (on both political sides) against government intrusion, highlighting the threat of George Orwell’s book 1984. However, as time went on both Democrats and Republicans became complacent. We slowly got accustomed to TSA agents at airports checking our personal belongings. Our initial outrage from former NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden soon became less important as Americans became used to the fact that both Big Brother and mega-corporations are spying on our every move in the Internet Age.

Considering this cultural mindset, Donald Trump said on the campaign trail that Edward Snowden was a traitor and even implied capital punishment as a remedy. This sickly twisted view of patriotism is disgusting. Donald Trump never harped on the growing rise of the police state usurping our civil liberties protected by the many of the Bill of Rights, chiefly the Fourth Amendment. I have heard Trump speak highly of Abraham Lincoln, a president who suspended Habeas Corpus and jailed dissenters all the while violating the sovereign right of states protected by the Tenth Amendment.

The screws of this disaster were tightened during the Reconstruction by the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. The Fourteenth Amendment placed a choke-hold on states by complicating the due process system, making it harder for state courts to rule independently.

Moreover, the vast majority of Donald Trump supporters I meet have no problem with his disregard for fundamental constitutional tenets, such as civil liberties. His filthy support for the military-industrial complex and our interventionist foreign policy are no different from the acts of President George W. Bush concerning Iraq, Afghanistan and the “War on Terror.”

I am sickened by President Trump’s appointment of Gina Haspel as Director of the CIA, an agent who oversaw a secret government torturing program during the George W. Bush administration. The crimes were covered up until former CIA case officer John Kiriakou blew the whistle by coming forth on national news. Apparently his conscience wouldn’t let him remain silent. As a result, he was tried and prosecuted by the federal government and sentenced to 30 months in prison.

If only it ended there. President Trump’s appointment of John Bolton as National Security Advisor, along with Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State, are the last people I would want leading our foreign affairs. John Bolton is a cruel, hawkish warmonger. His statements during the George W. Bush administration as well as his actions today are OUTRAGEOUSLY STUPID. The man seems to have an internal complex with control and supreme authority, because he advocates for virtually instant war toward any foreign power without exception.

John Bolton’s solution to just about every foreign nation that crosses U.S. interests seems to be merciless blatant war, regardless of the bloodshed and fiscal consequences. John Bolton is a complete LUNATIC.

Why the hell did Donald Trump appoint such bad people? There are people who voted for him who say the same thing. I myself know, however, which I why did not vote. I went to the ballet box for no one on November 8th, 2016, because I had less than 70 percent confidence in all of the candidates. Some look at the refusing to vote as unAmerican or even dangerous. I say such people are idiots. I will NOT vote for Trump despite the few policies I do agree with—because his other policies are insane.

No One Can Fit Me Into Categories: I am too Weird for ‘Simple’

Many of them would gawk at me, a former U.S. Marine, present-day gun owner, and yet a yoga and pole fitness devotee and plant-based eater. I don’t fit the nice, neat “cookie-cutter” mold that they would like to place me into. Such unsophisticated people haven’t the IQ to comprehend an open intellectual mind. I still buy coffee at Starbucks, and I drive a Prius to save money on gas. Thus I am an avid supporter of the original Constitution and Bill of Rights, which includes an unabridged right to keep and bear arms for defense against a tyrannical government. Not to mention I consider my gender fluid and neutral. I DO believe there are more than two genders despite the biological facts about male and female sex.

Am I a social justice warrior? Absolutely not. If you really wanted to know what I think about race and ethnic rights I would say we are all equal on moral ground, but have differing levels of IQ and variations of intelligence. There is no one size fits all phenomenon in this world. There are countless gray areas, and my worldview does not fall neatly and succinctly with the average conservative mind. Therefore, I am not a conservative according to their standards; neither am I a liberal for that matter, but an Individual that uses my brain and thinks for myself. If I had to label my political or ideological persuasion, it would be a Natural Law advocate, which basically sums up the underlying groundwork for the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I may at times refer to myself as libertarian (lower-case “l”), but am careful due to the ignorance and misunderstandings of such definitions.

Categories
Uncategorized

Sex Trafficking Lies and Police Officer Bullies (with Video)

A large number of so called sex trafficking rings go under investigation for months, before the women are “rescued” after being ARRESTED with a CRIMINAL RECORD and thrown into cages. Not what I call justice protecting the innocent. Although there are real cases of women and children forced into slave labor and abuse, a vast number of prostitution scandals in the United States are merely consensual adults charged with serious crimes for doing nothing wrong.

Why do I say “nothing wrong?” Because any consensual business exchange between willing adults is a natural right that ought not be prosecuted. The Constitution protects freedom of expression and freedom of association in the First Amendment. It also alludes to additional rights in the Ninth Amendment that are not expressly defined, yet exist in nature. For example, the ruling in favor of allowing abortions in Roe v. Wade was decided with the help of the Ninth Amendment. Though I am pro-life, politicians, lawyers, and judges alike understand the immense and often underrated power of the Bill of Rights.

Thus, both the left and the right-wing are up in arms over a women’s right to choose “sex work.” Prostitution ought not be a crime. Thankfully in a county of Nevada they have followed this course. I am sick and tired of so-called liberals along with the religious, conservative right attacking individual liberty to advance their STUPID moral agenda.

John Stossel and Elizabeth Nolan Brown of ReasonTV highlight the outrageous police officers who enforce anti-prostitution laws—causing misery, debt and criminal regrets. Thus it only happens when the government gets involved. The politicians who advocate for such laws are insidious, and the police officers who obey such orders (to keep their job) are ruining lives and violating freedom. It does not matter if you personally oppose sex work and prostitution; it is not the state’s rightful responsibility to regulate morality among civilized, consenting adults.

The recent Robert Kraft case resulted in enormous stress and suffering, before the investigators failed in pressing charges for sex trafficking. The Florida case involved New England Patriots owner Robert K. Kraft, who was charged for solicitation of prostitution at the Orchids of Asia Day Spa after he made two visits in late January of 2018. In a 26-page ruling, Judge Leonard Hanser of Palm Beach County Court agreed with Kraft’s lawyers in their motions to suppress video evidence.

The judge concluded that the surveillance evidence was “seriously flawed” and that the warrant was “insufficient” because it failed to define parameters for those not under videotape surveillance, suggesting serious violations of their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. Here, the state and its police enforcers destroyed lives again by charging innocent people with crimes and dragging them into stressful court proceedings. True tyranny indeed.

John Stossel and Elizabeth Nolan Brown discuss the ludicrous nature of sex trafficking cases.
Categories
Freedom of Speech

Trump Should be Ridiculed if U.S. Extradites Assange

Julian Assange’s lawyer Jennifer Robinson and WikiLeaks’ Editor-in-Chief Kristinn Hrafnsson comment on the hearing.

Westminster Magistrate’s Court just had a hearing with Julian Assange’s lawyer Jennifer Robinson and Wikileak’s Editor-in-Chief Kristinn Hrafnsson on a request by the U.S. government to extradite Assange on charges of leaking classified information. For the past few weeks since his arrest Julian Assange is being kept in Her Magesty’s prison in solitary confinement—23 out of 24 hours a day in a cell. Utterly unconscionable for a journalist who did nothing wrong.

CHRISTOPHER NAWOJCZYK: This is DISGUSTING. Donald Trump will commit a crime against humanity and this nation’s founding ideals if his administration extradites Julian Assange to the United States for trial under espionage. Maybe Trump himself wants to see Assange punished, despite his favorable mentioning of Wikileaks during the campaign trail that helped in get elected. Thus no one ever knows the mind of Trump, a man who shoots from the hip with a bullish attitude. Ironically, he often allows appointed cabinet members to tell him what to do.

Julian Assange’s acts have been pursued since 2010 by the Obama administration, which has only been continued under Trump. If President Trump truly loved American values he would support true journalism under the First Amendment. Julian Assange committed no crime, and furthermore his Wikileaks articles brought light to the twisted, bloodthirsty aggression of the military-industrial complex. The United States engages in military conflicts around the world that have NOTHING to do with national defense.

The allegations against Julian Assange of leaking classified information fall flat on their face when scrutinized under constitutional law. One can only be charged with espionage against the U.S. government if the person acts with intent to undermine national sovereignty. Here, Assange received classified intelligence from a third-party and published it on Wikileaks. This transfer of information was nothing other than journalism, which protects the just rule of law.

Defining Espionage

Merriam Webster’s dictionary defines espionage as:

Definition of espionage (noun): “the practice of spying or using spies to obtain information about the plans and activities especially of a foreign government or a competing company”

Official Espionage Act of the U.S. Government

Let’s learn exactly what federal law has to say about espionage. Here is the official 18 United States Code (U.S.C.) Sections (§§) 791-799 from the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School:

18 U.S. Code CHAPTER 37—ESPIONAGE AND CENSORSHIP

§ 791. [Repealed. Pub. L. 87–369, § 1, Oct. 4, 1961, 75 Stat. 795]

§ 792. Harboring or concealing persons

Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is about to commit, an offense under sections 793 or 794 of this title, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 736Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

§ 793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or

(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or

(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or

(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

(h)

  • (1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law, any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from any foreign government, or any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, as the result of such violation. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
  • (2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1) of this subsection.
  • (3)(A) property subject to forfeiture under this subsection;
  • (3)(B) any seizure or disposition of such property; and
  • (3)(C) any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to such property, if not inconsistent with this subsection.
  • (4) Notwithstanding section 524(c) of title 28, there shall be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund in the Treasury all amounts from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by law.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 736; Sept. 23, 1950, ch. 1024, title I, § 18, 64 Stat. 1003; Pub. L. 99–399, title XIII, § 1306(a), Aug. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 898; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 103–359, title VIII, § 804(b)(1), Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3440; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 607(b), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3511.)

§ 794. Gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government

(a) Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defense, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, except that the sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the jury or, if there is no jury, the court, further finds that the offense resulted in the identification by a foreign power (as defined in section 101(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) of an individual acting as an agent of the United States and consequently in the death of that individual, or directly concerned nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large-scale attack; war plans; communications intelligence or cryptographic information; or any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy.

(b) Whoever, in time of war, with intent that the same shall be communicated to the enemy, collects, records, publishes, or communicates, or attempts to elicit any information with respect to the movement, numbers, description, condition, or disposition of any of the Armed Forces, ships, aircraft, or war materials of the United States, or with respect to the plans or conduct, or supposed plans or conduct of any naval or military operations, or with respect to any works or measures undertaken for or connected with, or intended for the fortification or defense of any place, or any other information relating to the public defense, which might be useful to the enemy, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

(c) If two or more persons conspire to violate this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

(d)

  • (1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States irrespective of any provision of State law—
  • (1)(A) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation, and
  • (1)(B) any of the person’s property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation.
  • For the purposes of this subsection, the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
  • (2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1) of this subsection.
  • (3)(A) property subject to forfeiture under this subsection;
  • (3)(B) any seizure or disposition of such property; and
  • (3)(C) any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to such property,if not inconsistent with this subsection.
  • (4) Notwithstanding section 524(c) of title 28, there shall be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund in the Treasury all amounts from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by law.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 737; Sept. 3, 1954, ch. 1261, title II, § 201, 68 Stat. 1219Pub. L. 99–399, title XIII, § 1306(b), Aug. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 898Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7064, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4404Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60003(a)(2), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1968Pub. L. 103–359, title VIII, § 804(b)(2), Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3440Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§ 604(b)(2), 607(b), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3506, 3511.)

Assange Should be Treated Like Any Other Journalist

Further, Assange might not be immune from espionage if he worked directly for a U.S. government agency and violated the codes of conduct or bylaws of that agency. The First Amendment protects free speech of the press without exception. Journalists who are given classified information by whistleblowers ought be immune from committing espionage even though the data released to the public might be sensitive. The principle still stands nevertheless.

This nation was built on ideological principles based on Natural Law. The Constitution’s purpose is to restrain the government and promote liberty—not be vice that chokes and suffocates an otherwise free press.

As Attorney Robinson said, prosecuting Julian Assange in this manner as merely a journalist publishing crimes about the state—will set a precedent among the world over that free speech does not exist. The whole notion of the phrase “free speech” implies it is protected from government punishment even though it may be greatly offensive. Whether that offense comes to a private party of the official government, freedom of speech is a longstanding ideological value of American jurisprudence stemming from Old English common law. What the government’s of Britain and the United States are doing to Assange is completely abhorrent.

Featured Image: Espen Moe [CC BY 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)]

Categories
Healthcare

Of Course DHA Supplementation is Necessary for Brain Health

I am annoyed and tired of seeing the fraudulent advocates out there, such as Professor Brain Peskin, claim that we don’t need to supplement with DHA. This is false. The confusion concerning this subjected is immense and overwhelming. Thankfully though, many vegan and plant-based professionals are quoting the research and suggesting people take algae-derived DHA—if they happen to be vegan. A recent study highlighted by Dr. Greger, MD, cites that participants had bigger brains by consuming supplemental DHA compared to the control group. The researchers followed people over time. After 5 years, the MRI brain scans of those taking DHA looked “noticeably healthier.” Hence the size of our brains start shrinking at around age 20.

Dr. Michael Greger, MD, outlines this important study on DHA supplementation by following people over time.

In my opinion, one can get by without taking supplemental DHA and EPA because the body will convert short-chain omega-3 fatty acids (alpha-linolenic acid “ALA”) into the two long-chain derivatives: (1) docosahexaenoic acid (“DHA”) and (2) eicosapentaenoic acid (“EPA”). However, it does this at a poor rate of only 1-5 percent. Thus DHA makes up almost half of the 70-percent fatty tissue in the brain, making it vitally necessary for cognitive health.

DHA is also found in the eye, and the 7.2mg intake that Peskin allegedly claims is all the brain takes in a day—is false. He cites a 2009 study of positron emission technology that looks at circulating DHA in the brain. After searching this article to confirm his finding, I find NO SUCH FACT.

Brian Peskin has been in trouble with the State of Texas, when the Attorney General charged him with making false claims about his credentials as a ph.D as well as health claims about three products he marketed with his company. Peskin quickly agreed to an injunction to cease these acts. In addition, I know of two research articles he published that got retracted for various reasons from two academic journals: The Journal of Lipids and Food and Nutritional Sciences (FNS). Here are the following retracted articles with explanations:

Food and Nutritional Sciences: RETRACTED: Why Fish Oil Fails to Prevent or Improve CVD: A 21st Century Analysis

Journal of Lipids: Retracted: Why Fish Oil Fails: A Comprehensive 21st Century Lipids-Based Physiologic Analysis

My Own Subjective Experience with DHA

From my own account I have seen profound cognitive benefits since returning to my regular fish oil consumption. I take a pharmaceutical grade cod liver oil from Garden of Life, which is cheaper than the vegan algae DHA capsules I have taken before. Cod liver oil also contains vitamins A (retinol) and D. Thus I have since then abandoned the “vegan” label and now refer to myself as “plant-based.”

I never liked the stigma attached to veganism because it often infers to a twisted worldview of Green New Deal politics and overly excessive care for animals—to the point of placing them before humans. That said I am a sincere supporter of animal welfare, and quite honestly—I feel sober by not consuming animal products like that of a carnivore. Call it compassion, or my recognition of living beings and the right to life. It’s just naturally how I feel.

Further, I feel smarter and more cognitive overall in my ability to speak fluently, in which words more easily come to me, and my vigor to read and write. I don’t seem to struggle putting sentences together as I sometimes did just a few weeks ago after taking a break from DHA and EPA supplementation to see how I felt.

The claim that vegans, vegetarians and everyone else doesn’t need to supplement with long-chain omega-3 fats is just wrong and dangerous. You are cutting yourself short of optimal health in so many ways. The brain is all you have to make wise executive decisions in the prefrontal cortex, recall memories, and use the language and mathematical centers to compose music and think critically. No wonder the vegans I know who seem to have a hard time speaking in logical complete sentences don’t take DHA. I am not making this up. Aside from the vast majority of Americans who likely don’t eat enough fatty fish with DHA (salmon, mackerel, sardines, etc.), the many health nuts who don’t believe in consuming animals products think their brains are fine. They are wrong.

These claims and statements are my honest account from both subjective and objective experience. I surely do believe that short-chain omega-3 supplementation is necessary for ideal brain health.

*Disclaimer: These claims and statements are the opionion of the author and are not intented to treat, diagnose or cure a disease. For medical advice seek the help of a certified medical professional.

Categories
Vaccines

[Video] NYC Vaccine Mandates: Violating Private Property Rights

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBKSrz6os8c
Christopher Nawojczyk talks about private property rights in relation to vaccines.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio launched a mandate requiring residents of 4 zip codes of Brooklyn to be inoculated with the MMR vaccination, with non-compliance resulting in a $1,000 fine or even jail time. One neighborhood in this area known as Williamsburg has a large Orthodox Jewish community, which refuse vaccinations for religious reasons.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo spoke out against the mayor’s decision citing the possible violations of the First Amendment concerning religious exemption, despite the public health emergency that the mayor invoked. Nevertheless, many supporters of this mandatory law allude to public safety of principle concern, justifying it on the grounds of the constitutional rational basis test, which allows for a city or domestic jurisdiction to impose laws that might succeed due to a demonstrable “rational” means. However, many lawyers and activists think otherwise. Thus the city will likely have a court case on their hands due to forcing people by law to get vaccinated—against their will.

In the nearby county of Rockland, northwest of the city, a similar law went into effect requiring people to get vaccinated without exemption, but the court struck it down. Similar mandatory vaccine laws are rising up all over the nation because of propaganda based on flawed studies that vaccines are safe. Aside from the fact that that is an outright lie—all vaccines carry risk of injury or death from official literature—the human body has natural defenses against disease when a person is healthy and well-nourished. Somehow though, Americans have forgotten the principles that made this nation great: individual liberty and private property—the foundations of prosperity and freedom.

Free speech and property rights go hand-in-hand. They interrelate because private property starts with the individual person, which consists of both intellect and the physical body. You own your body, your mind and your spirit. You can choose to act in accordance with free will because you have ownership over yourself.

Your body is therefore subject to your mind which is governed by cognitive decisions (in the prefrontal cortex: the command center of the brain). If you do not want vaccines you have the right to refuse. Part of private property doctrine is the right to “exclude”—whether it means removing unwelcome people from your land, your social circle, or from letting substances enter your body.

From Mercola.com | Measles Vaccine Likely Caused Death of Four Infants in Nepal, Authorities Say

MMR Vaccine has Long History of Being More Reactive than Other Vaccines 

There are vaccines that historically have been associated with more side effects than others, and the combination measles, mumps and rubella vaccine – MMR shot – is one of those. 

The health risks associated with the MMR vaccine has been in the news for about 15 years, and questions about the safety of the vaccine recently re-emerged – at least in Europe – when the Italian health ministry conceded that the MMR vaccine caused autism in Valentino Bocca, a now nine-year-old boy, who suffered brain inflammation and permanent brain damage after he was vaccinated. 

According to his parents, the change in his behavior was immediate. That same night he refused to eat, and he developed diarrhea during the night. It quickly went downhill from there. While his parents immediately suspected the vaccination, they were told this was “impossible.” Valentino progressively regressed, and received the diagnosis of autism a year later. In the final analysis, the Italian Health Ministry disagreed with the initial conclusion of the pediatrician, conceding that the vaccine was indeed at fault.

It’s well worth noting that this story was completely ignored by US media, and serves as a potent example of how health information is censored. Is it any wonder so many Americans are still in the dark about vaccine hazards? Whether hearing about this case in the US media would sway you to believe vaccines are risky or not, the fact is that you were not even allowed to learn about it in the first place.