Category Archives: First Amendment

Amy Goodman Is Facing Jail Time for Reporting on the Dakota Access Pipeline. That Should Scare Us All.

Journalist Amy Goodman Arrested for reporting on ND pipeline

Amy Goodman Is Facing Jail Time for Reporting on the Dakota Access Pipeline. That Should Scare Us All.

“The charges against Goodman are a clear attack on journalism and freedom of the press.”

“Goodman had the audacity to commit this journalism on September 3, when she was in North Dakota covering what she calls “the standoff at Standing Rock”: the months-long protests by thousands of Native Americans against the Dakota Access Pipeline. The $3.8 billion oil pipeline is slated to carry barrel after barrel of Bakken crude through sacred sites and burial grounds of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, and tribe members fear it could pollute the Missouri River, the source not only of their water but of millions of others’, should the pipe ever rupture. Their protests, which began in April and ballooned through the summer months, represent the largest mobilization of Native American activists in more than 40 years—and one of the most vital campaigns for environmental justice in perhaps as long.”

 

Journalist Amy Goodman Arrested for reporting on ND pipeline

 

 

Facebooktwitterrss

Your Right to Bodily Self-Government is under Attack

Pediatric Physician Claims Authority to Override Individual’s Right to Self-Government

A recognized pediatric doctor who specializes in vaccination research would like to get the federal government on his side to help him turn his profitable and authoritarian medical agenda into law.  Dr. Paul Offit is not only a prominent pediatric doctor, he is also a physician who holds financial interests with the manufacturers of the same vaccines which he wants to be required by law.  You can read all about him at his own website.

Here’s the kicker:  Dr. Offit proposes also proposes the total elimination of all spiritual and religious exemptions for vaccinations.  That means that anyone who disagrees with government sanctioned medical opinions about the need for vaccinations would be simply overridden. Submit to injection of a foreign substance into your body, or face criminal penalties.

Land of Liberty?

Such a level of authority raises individual liberty concerns with Americans.   Two schools of thought stand in opposition to unquestionable government mandated medical authority.

One faction 0f opposition not only doubts the effectiveness of vaccines, but is highly suspicious of their content for a variety of medical reasons.  Another faction of opposition is largely ignored and unknown.  This faction  objects to vaccinations on the basis of religious and spiritual interpretations of human life which are often contrary to the conclusions of medical science.

Both camps rally around the same point, namely:

Does any person or group of persons possesses any real authority over the life of any other well- meaning person?

Don’t get me wrong.  I am not at all speaking in opposition to the well-meaning humanitarian efforts of the best of medical scientists and practitioners, but by what authority does any single human being’s conclusions rule the individual lives of other well meaning human beings?

Excuse me, but when did medical science prove itself to be 100% infallible and always correct?  Countless intelligent and qualified physicians and researchers continually contradict one another’s conclusions.  Once again, I’m not at all out to discredit anyone in medicine, but I do ask,  but from whence comes the conjecture that any singular medical opinion is superior to all others?

The medically admitted dangers of vaccinations

The best medical authorities freely admit that they might never know all that there is to know about the causes of disease.  The effectiveness of treatments and vaccines consistently and sometimes inexplicably change over time, and even the best medical experts can even be sure why.

No single physician’s knowledge is flawless or absolute

The medical community is comprised of many intelligent thinkers, each independently working to deduce the causes of diseases and suggest effective of cures and vaccines.  Who is capable of judging any of them to be absolutely correct?

Medical conclusions about the safety of vaccines are far from final and are never unquestionably conclusive or final.  Brand new facts and findings about the effectiveness and dangers of vaccines are continually discovered. The best medical researchers admit that medical science is in a state of continual flux, always evolving, always changing.

Medical opinion, therefore, is neither comprised of absolute knowledge nor does it have absolute authority over anyone or anything.

Governmental Claims to Authority

Today’s American population is trained and conditioned by an educational process that teaches its subjects to look to our government as the provider of the solution to every societal problem.  As a result, individual rights and personal liberty are too often exchanged for the illusion of the government’s provision of protection.  The Center for Disease Control has come to be looked upon by the public as able to provide us with infallible direction, and that perception is pure politically driven illusion.

The fact is, the CDC is only a group of mortal  human beings.  No agency exists which is qualified to grant authority to any individual (or to any group of individuals) in the interest of their own collective common good.

The First Amendment and Religious Freedom

Dr. Paul Offit wields political influence in the medical world.  He presently is demanding that everyone be forced into receiving the vaccines that he recommends, and profits from.  He claims that his knowledge on the subject of vaccination trumps any and all opposing medical or spiritual knowledge,  and that therefore spiritual and religious exemptions are invalid.  Dr. Offit is actively is campaigning to remove the right to refuse vaccination, regardless of reason.

The Constitution of The United States of America recounts the inalienable rights granted by God to men.  Our rights are not granted by the decisions of other human beings.  Our rights are an inherent part of our being.

Because some readers may profess atheism, let’s state it another way.  You are in charge of yourself and of your own body.  No other human being can claim a valid authority over your right to govern your own mind and body.

The First Amendment reads:  “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.”

Dear Dr. Offit:

Dr. Offit, it is clear that my religious beliefs conflict with your demands and wishes to control me and my body.  However the US Constitution says that you simply can do nothing about that.  No law shall prohibit the free exercise of my religion.  The “greater good” cannot prohibit my right to exercise my religion.   The word shall means what it says – it shall not happen.  I shall not trade the right to control my own body for your perception of a “greater good”

I, as a self governed human being, am as free to disagree with the conclusions of medical science as you are, or anyone else is, to agree with them.  There simply is no authority outside of myself that can outrank the authority that I possess to govern myself, and that every other American possesses to govern themselves.

I believe that I speak for every American by virtue of the Bill of Rights.

Facebooktwitterrss

St. Louis Mayor Shocked by Constitutional Activism

constitutional activism

Constitutional Activism Expected in the good ol’ US of A

A recent reformation of Missouri law, the result of effective constitutional activism, makes openly carrying a firearm just a little bit easier than it used to be.  On October 24th in St Louis, about 40 legally armed demonstrators rejoiced over this reform by peacefully assembling and exercising their right to be openly armed.

The mayor of St. Louis and a variety of sheeple expressing opposing views were shocked by this event – shocked that citizens would actually openly exercise their constitutionally protected rights simply….. because they can!  Regarding the peaceful and quiet demonstration, Mayor Francis Slayer was quoted by the St Louis Post-Dispatch at a news conference:

“This is not Deadwood, South Dakota, in the 1870s…….In Deadwood, there was no law, but in Missouri, it is the law,” he said, referring to the legal ability to openly carry guns in public. “I don’t know what is worse.” He then said that the new law on carrying is “confusing” to police.

What’s Confusing? Am I Missing Something?

The law is “confusing” to police?  Where’s the confusion?  If a citizen is openly armed and is not posing a threat to anyone, then leave him or her alone.  On the other hand, if a citizen is a danger to others in violation of a law, then police action should be taken to control that person, armed or not. When was the last time a violent criminal was seen openly carrying? From the criminal’s standpoint, would carrying openly be in the best interest of his own violent criminal intentions?

I think that’s a very easy to understand policy, and it is clearly in conformance with the new law and with basic constitutional rights. Am I missing something?  Maybe they have all been watching too much TV.

There is one fact I overlooked.  Police have grown accustomed to hassling those who open carry.  The prohibition of open carry was the “law” to which they were accustomed. Many of them are now upset about no longer being permitted to do so, and that is their only point of confusion.

Sorry to inform you, Mr. Slayer, but this is St. Louis in 2014 and it IS rightfully the law in Missouri, and it IS rightfully the law nationwide. It is law specifically defined by provisions of the Second Amendment to our US Constitution.  In addition, the Tenth Amendment assures us that no State has the authority to impose any law that is contrary to provisions defined in the US Constitution.

Law in the Old West in Deadwood

Why was there no law against open carrying in Deadwood, South Dakota, in 1870?  Back then, like today, it was because of the Second Amendment.  I do not know the present law in Deadwood, but if there is now any law there today which would pretend to prohibit open-carry, that law would be just as invalid there today as such law presently IS invalid in St Louis. The Second and the Tenth Amendments apply universally, for all time.

The Right to Free Assembly and Free Speech: It’s NOT Shocking!

Should it be shocking that citizens who have for too long been denied the ability to exercise their natural constitutionally guaranteed rights without risk of being locked up for such action, should now take measures to openly re-assert their rights?  If we do not openly exercise our rights and exercise them now, they will surely be walked upon.  As soon as we allow our rights to be walked upon, we have given them up to an unjust authority.

What’s the Real Shocker, Mayor Slayer?

More shocking to me than peaceful people carrying guns in public is popular opposition to the open exercise of a constitutional right.  Of course those who oppose exercising constitutional rights have every right to do so.  We all have a right to remain ignorant, and to practice ignorance. The truth is that the trending lack of truth in education on the subject of the history of the American Revolution has resulted in widespread ignorance of the real basis of our founding documents, and of what they mean to each of us in real life-practice.

On the other hand, with no knowledge of the political climate under which the American colonists revolted against tyrannical authority imposed by the British monarchy of King George III, and with no understanding or knowledge of the motivations of the intentions of our Founding Fathers, could we reasonably expect any intelligent responses from the ignorant?  I guess not.

A Bad Western?  Of Course.  Nobody was Shot!

St Louis Mayor Francis Slayer also referred to the peaceful and quiet demonstration as akin to “something out of a bad western”.  Maybe the mayor is right.  A western without an exaggerated and overly dramatic fatal shooting scene would be a very bad western indeed.

Time for America to awaken –  Time to Exercise your Rights!

How can America return to its original foundation, grounded in the guarantee of individual liberty? Each and every one of us must awaken to understand that the Bill of Rights was an enumeration of rights.  The granting of natural rights comes from God Himself, and not from any document or human being. That is exactly why the Bill of Rights is referred to as an enumeration.  It is a listing of self-existent and therefore inalienable rights.

If you happen to be an atheist, then I will state that another way, and I doubt that you will disagree:  You are a self-governed and independent being.  No other human being possesses any valid authority to control your actions or your life, and as soon as you hand over your keys to yourself to someone or something else, you by default give up your own natural sovereignty.

Kudos are due the organizers of this demonstration in St. Louis. The time has come for us all to exercise and practice our rights publicly, or lose their recognition. Now let’s get to it!

You can read about this and similar topics at http://dailyunconstitutional.com

Facebooktwitterrss
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!