Member since 3 years ago
44 ideas posted
552 comments 897 votes
7 votes
I disagreeWho is that going to be? It isn't Obama. He's afraid of losing his political capitol if he frees the people.
All hail the stoners who will bring back more freedom to the USA by fighting the war on drugs than any other political grouping.
2 votes
I disagreeStrip search your 13 year old children in the public schools.
So, another weasel moment by our supreme court.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-479.ZS.html
Here's what they said.
Yes, that was wrong to strip search a 13 year old, make her pull her undergarments away from her body. But, who cares. We hadn't clearly told you not to, so we won't punish you for doing it.
0 votes
I disagreeStatement of R. Gil Kerlikowske Director, National Drug Control Policy Remarks at Release of 2009 World Drug Report June 24, 2009 http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/news/speech09/062409_Kerlikowske.pdf “Our new fiscal year 2010 Budget proposes doubling funding for adult, juvenile and family drug court, tripling ….” Also see: where he explains that neither he nor Obama understand ...more »
Statement of R. Gil Kerlikowske
Director, National Drug Control Policy
Remarks at Release of 2009 World Drug Report
June 24, 2009
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/news/speech09/062409_Kerlikowske.pdf
“Our new fiscal year 2010 Budget proposes doubling funding for adult, juvenile and family drug court, tripling ….”
Also see:
where he explains that neither he nor Obama understand legalization as a word.
If you would be so kind, please email the White house and explain to them the meaning of term, as well, mention the fact that they are abusing the Constitution, treading on the rights of the people, and contributing greatly to the closing in on the event horizon pointing directly to a bloody revolution, chock full of angry Americans who are tired of this invasion.
Also, if you would, I would appreciate it if you would consider voting on:
http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/8560-4049 … A call for civil disobedience
http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/8327-4049 ... An affirmation of your 9th amendment right to liberty
http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/8316-4049 ... A JFK Quote on Revolution and why it must be violent
and all others that support true liberty, that defend our right to private conduct, to personal arms, and to personal and private property, defense of, and to a true meaning the Constitution.
Enough is enough.
« less full details »
3 votes
I disagreeThe Free world is not free. There is no freedom in the USA for private, non-harmful conduct.
So long as they imprison people, fight back.
Store your contraband by burying it in your local politician's back yard.
In their cars.
Set them up to be arrested. Then call a tip line and follow through.
6 votes
I disagreeHow the 9th Amendment Prohibits the War on Drugs, Understanding your Liberty. The source of the 9th amendment is not in controversy. James Madison attempted to answer the argument that a bill of rights would leave future populations vulnerable to government laying claim to any powers not expressly protected in the bill of rights. The familiar argument: “Where is it listed in the constitution that you have the right ...more »
How the 9th Amendment Prohibits the War on Drugs, Understanding your Liberty.
The source of the 9th amendment is not in controversy. James Madison attempted to answer the argument that a bill of rights would leave future populations vulnerable to government laying claim to any powers not expressly protected in the bill of rights.
The familiar argument: “Where is it listed in the constitution that you have the right to …._______?” and variations on the theme are common in discourse. For example, where is it written that you have a right to privacy, a right to marriage, a right to procreation, a right to freedom of movement, a right to property? Those rights are not enumerated.
Hence we arrive at a distortion that the constitution grants rights, and every once in a while, the Supreme Court tosses you a freebie, like the right to marry and procreate, to travel, to privacy.
The difference between the understanding at the time the constitution was designed and today’s faulty application of the constitution by your power-obsessed government, was that fundamental rights then, were a given. It was inconceivable that government would have any interest in interfering with personal rights. The same is not true today.
There is no matter so personal, so small, or so unimportant to national concerns that our government feels appropriately inhibited to regulate it. Without the 9th amendment, we are free game, experimental social objects for government manipulations, and no matter what our accomplishments may be, or our age, there is no age of majority that government is bound to respect. They take it upon themselves to parent you until you die.
There are legal presumptions the court has made up that govern how they look at controversies at law. One of the most distorted and wicked, when combined with a willful abandonment of the 9th amendment is the presumption of constitutionality.
The Supreme Courts operate on the assumption that if Congress passes a law, it is automagically constitutional until you are arrested, and from that disadvantaged position, prove otherwise.
The true nature of the constitution was to preserve liberty. Liberty of the people.
The courts have read into the constitution a nature that demands they protect government.
If the courts were true to the heart of our supreme law, there would be a presumption of liberty, and government would have to justify a challenged law as necessary to the function of enumerated powers.
There is no government power listed that they should or can operate as parental units, approving or disapproving private conduct. Prohibition is an infringement of fundamental liberty.
That is what the 9th amendment protects—the liberty of the individual to operate free from government constraint. That is why they ignore it. They have, for over two centuries, interpreted the law in reverse—to protect government from inhibition rather than people from oppression. They have interpreted the constitution in such a manner as to deny a fundament right of liberty in and of itself.
Then they add to the abuse by denying you the right to challenge your vulnerability to arrest on improper grounds until you are arrested and weakened. They claim they have no time for such things. If congress wrote a law today that said you must wear beanies on Tuesdays, and go bare-headed on Wednesdays, precedent demands that unless you can prove damages, and then only after arrest for failing to wear the legislated head gear, are you given a chance to challenge the abuse of power.
They can only do this because they are under no requirement to respect a fundamental right of liberty so long as they are permitted to ignore the 9th amendment.
The prohibition of drugs is unconstitutional, and infringes on each citizen in their private conduct in their homes, the one territory the founders did everything they could to preserve as your domain.
The single, most vigorous barrier to enjoying the liberty inherent in the 9th amendment does not lie in the courts, it lies in the willingness of the population to be abused. It is time, if not for full revolution, for massive civil disobedience, to overwhelm government’s resources to continue the pattern of abuse.
It is past time. We can’t wait for some politician to see the light of day and be willing to risk votes for what’s right. We must win one all on our own, through our own refusal to recognize their abuse of authority as valid. We win one, we’ll turn the tide. There's no telling how free we can be.
Sobi
Free on SSRN: The Rights Retained by the People: The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment Volume 2
Edited by Randy E. Barnett
George Mason University Press (1993)
« less full details »
7 votes
I disagreeJohn F. Kennedy. ^^^^^^
Every name on a list, every minute under a watchful eye, every email that is recorded, every phone call that is recorded, every dollar that is spent, every plea that is made, every effort that is taxed, none will be adequate to the task of holding down the American spirit when it is deprived of liberty for one minute too long.
Sobi ^^^^^
-5 votes
I disagreeInstall a "read" button to remove an idea one lacks interest in.
Cut off walls of text at 500 words, add a more link.
Either permit HTML or don't. Stop the embedding of videos, or provide a way to link to them with a reduce image button.
These are not difficult or mysterious upgrades.
0 votes
I disagreeThis is faulty thinking. Biden is a pandering sycophant anyway.
They are not talking about preserving the Average income bracket. Just a favored income bracket.
21 votes
I disagreeAnonymity is a foundation for political speech. But the UK has done away with it.
Do not let this happen in the USA. Our government watches other governments to see what they can get away with, then follows suit. All over the globe, this happens, and people are ground down to dollars and dust.
If we are to have valid government, we must fight back more effectively than ever.
9 votes
I disagreeGoogle newsgroup.
Where the ranting and raging can continue.
I'll be there.
10 votes
I disagreeSection 1: Congress shall have power to regulate or prohibit any activity between one state and another, or with foreign nations, provided that no regulation or prohibition shall infringe any enumerated or unenumerated right, privilege or immunity recognized by this Constitution. Section 2: Nothing in this article, or the eighth section of article I, shall be construed to authorize Congress to regulate or prohibit any ...more »
Section 1: Congress shall have power to regulate or prohibit any activity between one state and another, or with foreign nations, provided that no regulation or prohibition shall infringe any enumerated or unenumerated right, privilege or immunity recognized by this Constitution.
Section 2: Nothing in this article, or the eighth section of article I, shall be construed to authorize Congress to regulate or prohibit any activity that takes place wholly within a single state, regardless of its effects outside the state or whether it employs instrumentalities therefrom; but Congress may define and punish offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States.
Section 3: The power of Congress to appropriate any funds shall be limited to carrying into execution the powers enumerated by this Constitution and vested in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof; or to satisfy any current obligation of the United States to any person living at the time of the ratification of this article.
Section 4: The 16th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed, effective five years from the date of the ratification of this article.
Section 5: The judicial power of the United States to enforce this article includes but is not limited to the power to nullify any prohibition or unreasonable regulation of a rightful exercise of liberty. The words of this article, and any other provision of this Constitution, shall be interpreted according to their public meaning at the time of their enactment.
Except for its expansion of Congressional power in Section 1, this proposed amendment is entirely consistent with the original meaning of the Constitution. It merely clarifies the boundary between federal and state powers, and reaffirms the power of courts to police this boundary and protect individual liberty.
Section 1 of the Federalism Amendment expands the power of Congress to include any interstate activity not contained in the original meaning of the Commerce Clause. Interstate pollution, for example, is not "commerce . . . among the several states," but is exactly the type of interstate problem that the Framers sought to specify in their list of delegated powers. This section also makes explicit that any restriction of an enumerated or unenumerated liberty of the people must be justified.
Section 2 then allows state policy experimentation by prohibiting Congress from regulating any activity that takes place wholly within a state. States, of course, retain their police power to regulate or prohibit such activity subject to the constraints imposed on them, for example, by Article I or the 14th Amendment. And a state is free to enter into compacts with other states to coordinate regulation and enforcement, subject to approval by Congress as required by Article I.
Section 3 adopts James Madison's reading of the taxing and borrowing powers of Article I to limit federal spending to that which is incident to an enumerated power. It explicitly allows Congress to honor its outstanding financial commitments to living persons, such its promise to make Social Security payments. Section 4 eliminates the federal income tax, after five years, in favor of a national sales or excise tax.
Finally, Section 5 authorizes judges to keep Congress within its limits by examining laws restricting the rightful exercise of liberty to ensure that they are a necessary and proper means to implement an enumerated power. This section also requires that the Constitution be interpreted according to its original meaning at the time of its enactment. But by expanding the powers of Congress to include regulating all interstate activity, the Amendment greatly relieves the political pressure on courts to adopt a strained reading of Congress's enumerated powers.
Could such a Federalism Amendment actually be adopted? Stranger things have happened -- including the adoption of each of the existing amendments. States have nothing to lose and everything to gain by making this Federalism Amendment the focus of their resistance to the shrinking of their reserved powers and infringements upon the rights retained by the people. And this Federalism Amendment would provide tea-party enthusiasts and other concerned Americans with a concrete and practical proposal by which we can restore our lost Constitution.
Mr. Barnett is a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University and the author of "Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty" (Princeton, 2005).
« less full details »
20 votes
I disagreeThe 9th amendment is more than the heart of privacy in the constitution. It is the heart of individual autonomy, and adulthood.
It is the barrier to a constant creep of government into territory that belongs to the person. It is not properly ignored. It is not a legal joke.
It is real, and it means what it says.
Retained by the people.
3 votes
I disagreeKindly do not tread on me. Actually, delete that Kindly, how about--Do not tread on me because it is the heart of our nation. I repeat, because it is required. U.S. Citizens are not children. They are adults. Congress, the Administration, and the Judicial branch are not parents. They are employees of the U.S. Citizens. No sin taxes No prohibition Yes to the 9th Amendment which our Government ignores. And apologize ...more »
Kindly do not tread on me. Actually, delete that Kindly, how about--Do not tread on me because it is the heart of our nation.
I repeat, because it is required.
U.S. Citizens are not children. They are adults.
Congress, the Administration, and the Judicial branch are not parents.
They are employees of the U.S. Citizens.
No sin taxes
No prohibition
Yes to the 9th Amendment which our Government ignores.
And apologize for the arrogant abuse of power.
« less full details »
20 votes
I disagreeWho gave him a credit card? Take it away. Now.
Rebellion is past due. Get with it.
21 votes
I disagreeSee Drudge.
Obama is excited about the robust debate in Iran. Mistake.
He's breaking promises faster than he made them, and this exercise in open government will be a major insult if nothing genuine comes of it.
A few new websites with pages for comment isn't going to get it.
He must answer. Or he stirs the pot and walks away. I don't think it will settle well so long as the heat is on.
8 votes
I disagreeFrom Air Force One press briefing, June 11. THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary ________________________________________________ For Immediate Release June 11, 2009 PRESS GAGGLE BY DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY BILL BURTON Aboard Air Force One En route Green Bay, Wisconsin 11:10 A.M. CDT MR. BURTON: When we land the President will be greeted on arrival by Governor Doyle, Congressman ...more »
From Air Force One press briefing, June 11.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
________________________________________________
For Immediate Release June 11, 2009
PRESS GAGGLE
BY
DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY BILL BURTON
Aboard Air Force One
En route Green Bay, Wisconsin
11:10 A.M. CDT
MR. BURTON: When we land the President will be greeted on arrival by Governor Doyle, Congressman Kagan, and Mayors Schmitt and Barrettt of Green Bay and Milwaukee. At the high school he'll be greeted by the school superintendent, Gregg Mass, and Principal Brian Davis and his wife, Dawn, and their four daughters. He'll have a couple of small meetings, one before and one after, with grassroots activists and local political leaders.
A couple facts about Wisconsin and Green Bay: In Green Bay unemployment is at 8.4 percent; Wisconsin as a whole, 8.6 percent; Green Bay has lost 5,400 jobs since December of '07. Wisconsin is a state, 137,500; and the rate of uninsured in Wisconsin is 8.5 percent.
Q I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.
MR. BURTON: It's 8.5 percent. I thought you had that in your story today. I guess not.
Q The activists that he's meeting with afterwards, how long will that be and who are they?
-------------------Below
MR. BURTON: It'll be pretty fast. It will be about 10 to 15 minutes and that's beforehand. They're just local grassroots activists -- he does it at most of these stops, just a normal meeting.
The meeting afterwards are leaders -- I don't have the full list with me, but it includes the Lieutenant Governor, Barbara Lawton and some others.
Q I'm sorry, activists on health care that he's meeting with before?
MR. BURTON: No, no, no, just local grassroots activists, people who are involved in the community in different ways.
-----------------Above
This is a demonstration of the actual thought processes in the Administrative Ranks.
Until they are actually committed to Open Government, there won't be one no matter what Obama says.
Continue to press for Open Government and point out these weaknesses in the support for it.
« less full details »
2 votes
I disagreeLOL. Repeal the 16th. Add amendment: Federal Government shall be content with a 10% sales tax, and shall apply no other taxes. Federal Government shall confine itself to its means and stay within its budget. Federal Government shall be free to petition God for extra money if they make budgeting mistakes. All, and I mean ALL excise taxes are prohibited. Obama, give back the SCHIP taxes. That was wrong, and bad. ...more »
LOL.
Repeal the 16th.
Add amendment:
Federal Government shall be content with a 10% sales tax, and shall apply no other taxes.
Federal Government shall confine itself to its means and stay within its budget.
Federal Government shall be free to petition God for extra money if they make budgeting mistakes.
All, and I mean ALL excise taxes are prohibited.
Obama, give back the SCHIP taxes. That was wrong, and bad.
Bad, bad, bad.
Corporations must go to God for loans, give aways and redemption.
« less full details »
8 votes
I disagreeThey have that vote up thing going on. So, here's how it works.
If it is popular speech, it will rise to the top like cream.
If it is unpopular speech, it will sink to the bottom like the disenfranchised behind it.
LOL
This is Open Government and Free Speech in the Good Ol' USA.
On a government site no less.
-10 votes
I disagreeMemo dated today, from Robynn Sturm, invites the public: Non-profits Companies Journalists Teachers Mothers Interested Citizens -----***IN THAT ORDER***----- ...to weigh in again. Doesn't say where, limits it to 3 ideas, apparently on how our government can explain to us how it controls our lives, for what purposes, how much it costs, etc., so on and so forth--the whole transparency sham. Obama, You need ...more »
Memo dated today, from Robynn Sturm, invites the public:
Non-profits
Companies
Journalists
Teachers
Mothers
Interested Citizens -----***IN THAT ORDER***-----
...to weigh in again. Doesn't say where, limits it to 3 ideas, apparently on how our government can explain to us how it controls our lives, for what purposes, how much it costs, etc., so on and so forth--the whole transparency sham.
Obama,
You need to smack down your minions and make them behave.
Robynn, I want to weigh in on what I want to weigh in on.
And by-the-way, I'm not properly placed last on the list.
Your thinking shows and it is improper.
« less full details »
-7 votes
I disagreeWhat would you say?
It is difficult to resist the seduction of sending a flaming email to the president.
Really, really, difficult.
22 votes
I disagreeGoogle groups.
Anyone can join, anyone can post.
Name: Open Government Uncensored
-18 votes
I disagreeNot nearly as popular.
7 votes
I disagreeScroll down to the bottom of the page, click on developers, and watch that discussion.
There is a screened data dump available for analysis.
Screening is a field listing whether your idea is on-topic. This is not a public field.
Read further, and you'll see that they do not want anyone to have a full dataset.
6 votes
I disagreeDescribe analysis that fails to capture the meaning of brainstorming, that washes it of all true conflict, praise it, and close comments.
This is just disgusting. There is very little pretense that this is an open process.
13 votes
I disagreeFailure to provide a clear link to discussion from brainstorming.
This is a no-brainer. Hide the discussion, perhaps the public won't find it.
Copyright © 2013 IdeaScaleFeedback Software
| Widget | IdeaScale Privacy Policy
Powered by IdeaScale
Social Web