MAD LIBS

Reichstag Fire

The Reichstag Fire on February 27 was blamed by Hitler's government on the Communists, and Hitler used the ensuing state of emergency to obtain the assent of President von Hindenburg to issue the Reichstag Fire Decree the following day. The decree invoked Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution and suspended a number of constitutional protections of civil liberties, allowing the Nazi government to take swift action against political meetings, arresting and killing the Communists.

The World Trade Center Attacks

The
The World Trade Center Attacks on September 11 was blamed by Bush's government on the Terrorists and Bush used the ensuing state of emergency to obtain the assent of Congress to issue the USA Patriot Act the following year. The decree invoked a State of Emergency and suspended a number of constitutional protections of civil liberties, allowing the US Government to take swift action against political meetings, arresting and killing .........



note:
the original text that i pulled the mad lib from was from the wikipedia article on the Weimar Republic's descent into Nazism

You Need to Own A Gun

Political activism has taken a turn in the past twenty or so years. Gun ownership has been spun, almost in the fault of lobbying groups like the NRA, as an extention of some redneck natural right to hunt big game. The reason the constitutional design of the United States of America included a right to bear arms was to allow for a militia. This has nothing to do with your committment to the flag, the president, or thewar on terror. The Second Ammendment was added to give you a means by which to protect the rule of law in the constitution FROM the powers of state, such as the president, the military, the police, etc. The founders did not realize or believe that the federal military could ever be stronger than their militia, but just in case, the right to bear arms was provided for.

This is not a right to a hunting rifle, a pistol, or any weapon suitable for either home defense or hunting. This is, effectively, a right to raise a militia of the people with the same or stronger military might of the state itself.

This is the design of our system of government. Removing a systemic component without replacing its function would be like taking the rear axle off of your car and replacing it with nothing. Now the primary check and balance of the people, the militia, effectively doesn't exist, and the mainstream media has so effectively spun the issue with one sided hit pieces that the people are eager to give awaythis crucial piece of design of our system.

Let's look at the intent of the right to bear arms. The government was built under the concept that government is run by mortal men who tend to corrupt when bathing in sociopolitical power. This required checks and balances to ensure that noone could seize undue control over the lives of the citizens and push laws on them that they found unacceptable. One of the strongest forms of power is military. Enforcement of the law requires the usage of weaponry, and creation of systems of power can be taken on by these means as well. Knowing that public officials, military generals, police, etc might begin operating in a way which is not legal according to the rule of law, a government of the people should empower the people to defend themselves against rogue activity. The sheer capability would discourage such activity as the power to do so wouldn't exist. For example, if a law enforcement officer or corrupt official wanted to push something on you which is in violation of a law, and you, your brother, and father all possessed assault weapons and had rigorously trained with a militia, a simple phonecall to your neighborhood troops would create a very sticky situation for the corrupt official. The knowledge that this outcome was a real possibility would prevent such actions.

Now the next emotional extention of this, is the fear that this militia would undue the rule of law because without a military edge the state couldn't defend the rule of law either! However in a government of the people, the laws reflect the morality of the people the laws govern. This would mean you would now have an ADDITIONAL law enforcement agency, your neighbors. The odds that a people would only support laws in contradiction with their own desired way of life in a majority is negligable. Essentially these laws would be created in support of the people, and if someone wanted to go "virginia tech" he would no longerhave support of his community, who would consider him a threat to their safety and act as a first line of defense.

Only through the total failure of a politician would you ever have a showdown between the military or law enforcement and the people, and if it were to happen, which it rarely would, it would probably be necessary in order to protect the rule of law.

For those of you who trust the government and feel this is an unreasonable thought, think about HR 1955, Patriot Acts episode 1 and 2,military commissions act, and the ending of the posse comitatus act. In the terms of the past two presidents we've seen the first and second ammendments, the writ of habeas corpus, unwarranted search and seizure,and cruel and unusual punishment protections thrown out the window. If you feel that Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and the other iconic figures of our past would want their images used to promote a government that doesn't enforce the rule of law they risked their life in a revolution to establish, you're living in a fantasy world.

The final argument you get against constitutional provisions is that they are antiquated, and not with the times. Although this is a very blanket and somewhat poorly rationed statement (the strongest argumentyou ever get for it is that the "founding fathers never imagined a world with [insert piece of technology here]" without explaining how this piece of technology makes liberty impossible and fascism or socialism suddenly a good idea again), I will address it: our current system is a decaying constitutional republic with authoritarian socialist tendencies. It only gets its power through a contract with the people short of a military coup. Knowing this, to say constitutional republics are out of date is a nice argument for abandoning the system, provided you have a totally new system and can get the support of the people. If instead you intend to fix it by just perverting a constitutional republic by selectively enforcing certain laws and ignoring others you are effectively creating nothing, which is something worse. This strategy is similar to a model tee car owner who, upon discovering the invention of jet airplanes, attatches a jet engine and landing gear to his car trying to keep with the times. This does notmake an airplane, this just makes a really screwed up dangerous car.

Now more than ever, you need a gun, the founding fathers warned us that this would happen, and we're not listening. They went to war with the English over a stamp tax. Warrentless wiretapping, torture, arresting people without trial, thought crime bills, 30% taxation, some of which is going to fund things which were not authorized legislatively, direct taxation, suppression of freedom of speech and the right to beararms... Next time you look at a picture of George W Bush or BillClinton in the White House with George Washington's picture behind them, be a pal and warn them to watch their back.

Why the Patriot Act, Military Comissions Act, and other infringements upon my liberties are not valid per my citizenship with my state.

Share on Facebook

i urge everyone reading this to take the time to examine their STATE Bill of Rights. Per the Baron vs. the City of Baltimore judgement of 1833, you are not a citizen of the Federal government, unless you live on Federal property. Although the 14th ammendment has given you duel-citizenship where it applies to States violating the U.S. Bill of Rights, it has not been applied in reverse. This means that all laws persuant to you must come from the state jurisdiction. Essentially, this application means that the United States Bill of Rights does NOT apply to you as a state citizen except where legal precedent has come down in judgements using the 14th ammendment.

Here are the reasons why the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, and such are not valid per my citizenship as a member of the Tennessee State, and my being beholden to its Bill of Rights.

"Sec. 1. That all power is inherent in the people, and all free gov-
ernments are founded on their authority, and instituted for
their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of
those ends they have at all times, an unalienable and inde-
feasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government
in such manner as they may think proper."

This particular line protects my classification as an enemy combatant, as a state citizen is allowed by law to abolish the government.

"Sec. 7. That the people shall be secure in their persons, houses,
papers and possessions from unreasonable searches and
seizures; and that general warrants, whereby an officer may
be commanded to search suspected places, without evidence of
the act committed, to seize any person or persons not named,
whose offenses are not particularly described and supported
by evidence, are dangerous to liberty and ought not to be granted."

The Patriot Act being able to authorize warrantless searches is in direct violation of my STATE BILL OF RIGHTS, to which i am governed pursuant to the supreme court judgementof Baron vs. the City of Baltimore. Since these rights are echoed in my Federal Bill of Rights, the 14th ammendment would not serve as proper precedent to circumvent this jurisdiction, this right is echoed in the Federal Bill of Rights also.

"Sec. 8. That no man shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseized of
his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or
exiled, or in any manner destroyed or deprived of his life,
liberty or property, but by the judgement of his peers or
the law of the land.

Sec. 9. That in all criminal prosecutions, the accused hath the
right to be heard by himself and his counsel; to demand the
nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have
a copy thereof, to meet the witnesses face to face, to have
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and
in prosecutions by indictment of presentment, a speedy pub-
lic trial, by an impartial jury of the County in which the
crime shall have been committed, and shall not be compelled
to give evidence against himself."

Here the Military Commissions Act judgement that an enemy combatant classification
would allow me to be held without due process of law against my will violates my
governing state Bill of Rights, making its application to me persuant to
Baron vs. the City of Baltimore, unlawful.

"Sec. 25. That no citizen of this state, except such as are employed
in the army of the United States, or militia in actual ser-
vices, shall be subjected to punishment under the martial or
military law. That martial law, in the sense of the unre-
stricted power of military officers, or others, to dispose
of the person, liberties, or property of the citizen, is
inconsistent with the principles of free government, and is
not confided to any department of the government of this
State."

Here, pursuant to my state Bill of Rights, Military Commissions Act is not applicable
to me, as it is a Military court and I as a state citizen can not be subjected to punishment via Martial Law.

please familiarize yourself with your particular STATE BILL OF RIGHTS. as this is likely your citizenship status, and this is where you get your rights. also, any federal law which is handed down must be accepted by the state, usually this is
encouraged via financial incentives. when federal judgements, laws, or executive
orders are passed down which you do not want to see in your life, contact your STATE legislature to have this application refused.

here's an online resource to begin your research on your own state bill of rights.

Theres no solution to the abortion debate because.... NEITHER SIDE WANTS TO WIN.

I'm going to open up by saying that I'm not going to chime in with my personal feelings about this subject yet, of which i have clear ones. I have had the same feelings about this subject since I first heard of it as a young child, and every statistic or news article about it seems to strengthen them. However, i don't want to go on public record about them until people know me a bit better, as people tend to throw you in one of two, very lame, groups based on which side you supposedly pick. I'm going to give devil's-advocacy to both sides of the debate here, so please read with a grain of salt, so that way i don't have to respond to 700 different people arguing against a side i may or may not even be on, with the same cliche two arguments (abortion is murder, period or its a womans body and noone has a right to tell her what to do with it). because, bottom line, i feel like both arguments are essentially bullshit gut reaction emotional puppet responses to two big teams with agendas they don't show you.

The biggest problem in this debate, is that politicizing it has caused the two sides to argue about completely different things.

On one side, pro-life, the very name, implies that people who are on this side are for the protection of life. Some people under this banner have committed terror attacks that have ended lives. Also, for them to make the debate so pronouncedly about the protection of life, they immediately alienate a certain humongous population. People who have had abortions. I'll get to this later. Essentially, this requires that everyone who is not on their side be labeled anti-life. Intentionally divisive moves like that, although attempting to show their side of the debate, alienate the opposite side. Obviously noone who is pro-choice considers themselves pro-death or anti life.

On the other side, pro-choice, implies that the whole debate is about civil liberties. This, too, is intentionally divisive and misleading. Obviously people who are pro-life are not anti-civil liberties. They don't see abortion as a civil liberties restriction, and assuming that if they get their way they are going to continue to pursue more reduction of civil liberty is just spin and totally imflammatory.

Now onto point one, and the facts about how civil liberties debate is affected by abortion. It is difficult to find good studies and facts about the abortion debate, as most are funded by two sides who are not trying to find a fair analysis, they are just trying to prove their own points. There are more civil liberties implications than most people know about this. One, this one is often the point of someone who is concerned about euthanasia and the death penalty. People who have little trust for government or social killing in any case, fear that when you are considering authorizing deaths caused by a person, that it is a sliding scale down which some really heinous atrocities have occurred in past societies. One, scientists and studies that have attempted to prove the beginning point of life being after a point at which a common pregnancy test can become positive (which generally takes a good couple weeks for an affordable and reliable test to give you that outcome) are not at a consensus. That means, that there are people on both sides of the debate, so it can not be stated that it is the ACCEPTED CONSENSUS that human life begins at birth. It can only be taken as a theory. Both sides have many different points at which they feel that life starts, being it two weeks into pregnancy, the third trimester, or whatever, but there is absolutely no consensus to this. Therefor basing legislation on that kind of science at this point is a bit too hasty. There is more research to be done. Obviously, there are points in a pregnancy, where if you watch an ultrasound video of an abortion being done, where the fetus is desperately avoiding the vacuum tube and moving wildly when it penetrates the surface, this is something that is not necessarily widely known, but easily viewable online or what have you. With facts on both sides, and a variety of takes on the issue, it is divisive. People who fear government allowance of deaths, euthanasia, or death penalties, are people who fear that sometimes people will die in a form of injustice, and that this should not be a power of government, as one bad apple (unjust death) spoils the whole damned bunch(makes the government into a murderer). The problem with arguing over what is, or what isn't humanity, and then offering a penalty of death to whatever isn't considered humanity, is that down the line, 100 years for now, this piece of common law could be used to sentence senior citizens to death. People on the opposing side of this debate generally don't feel this type of governmental injustice isn't realistic, but to be honest, stranger things have happened. (Look at Nazi Germany or the Roman empire to see government sponsored euthanasia campaigns authorized by citizens just like me or you unknowingly). This type of debate could start saying that, well, if a certain quality of life is what we decide is humanity, then some things we consider alive now, may someday not be considered alive by the same argument.

on the more pro-choice aspect of it, there is a fear that if government steps in on a womans reproductive issues, that this could slide further. Next thing you know women who are victims of rape, or to whom a tubular pregnancy might cause death, would be forced to bear children of rapes or through damaged reproductive organs. This one i have to say is the victim of heavy spin, as legalizing abortion itself, which is not the right of women to do anything to their bodies, it is the right for doctors to go into a womans body and terminate a pregnancy, seems to be a bit of a crazy solution. If pro-choice is a proper label, and if civil liberties are the issue, then it would make sense that the community would put more effort into funding research to transfer fetuses from an unwanted host to a wanted host, or to author legislation that allowed rape victims or women who are at risk for a tubular pregnancy to seek abortion. However, the abortion statistics aren't consistent with this kind of use, they are more consistent with use for post coital birth control. If the Pro-choice contingency argued that they think its important that post coital birth control be protected via abortion, it is possible quite a lot of people would reevaluate their acceptance of that label. If pro-choice can't begin to support legislation that specifically prevents this type of birth control usage of abortion, then they will NEVER get the pro-lifers to believe the rhetoric that they look at this as an issue that civil liberties effort. If civil liberties advocacy on the behalf of the fetus is accepted by pro-choice, then a REAL future which involved reevaluating abortion as a viable option to prevent womens deaths or carrying babies to term via rape, then there could be a solution that both sides could live with. But the bottom line is 20-30% of pregnancies are being aborted these days, and there are not rape statistics, or death statistics for women carrying out pregnancies that come within 1% of those cases. that is spin.

Pro-life wants to call women who abort babies murderers. However, there is little sensible education to women these days to make them believe that this accepted medical practice is a murder. Generally, they are told its a bundle of cells, its a totally healthy procedure, and the only downside is a slight possibility of Post Abortion Stress Syndrome. They go to a doctors office, the same type of office that they are told from birth will extend their lifespan, and the action is done under some degree of anaesthesia, and essentially they are doing nothing themselves other than having coitus, signing forms, and being on drugs and taking a nap. Anyone who calls a person who does this a murderer, is obviously not concerned with solving this debate, or slowing down the rate of abortion. You want to know why? Because 1 out of every 2.5 women now has an abortion by age 50. This means a massive percentage of the people they want to convince, are going to have to face the fact that they are a murderer, forever.

Calling the abortionists murderers also doesn't do much for their argument. These are medical professionals, and the world they live in is arm deep in blood and gore. Its a very tricky and confusing world to understand what is or isn't supporting or promoting life or death, because its all mind-numbingly gross if your not in that field. These people take life into their hands regularly, and are making the best judgement they can considering what studies are available, and many studies abortionists are given show statistics about how many illegal abortions are performed, and how great the health benefits are. (although, to be fair, these are not provided by unbiased sources, as this is a contentious part of the debate also). The most important thing, is they are upholding the law, and the standards of the health care the community wants. You can't just call that person a murderer. If you want to call the legislation murderous, then you can make that allegation without hurting anyones feelings and make your points from there, but the current procedure of attacking people for a piece of legislation they don't understand is unfair and alienating.

some day.. ill explain my beliefs on this issue, and show some stats and facts that most people don't know about that pertain to this debate. but not until both sides show they care one way or the other who wins, and stop smearing people for having certain beliefs.

the bottom line: pro choicers do not believe that they advocate death, and pro lifers are not ignorant rednecks who want to control women's wombs from afar.

this is much more complex of a debate than the spin scam will make you think.