Restore America – Individual Rights

Restore America

(Exercising my 1st Amendment rights to Freedom of Speech)

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

The deterioration of every government begins with the decay of the principles on which it was Founded

C.L. De Montesquieu

        Civil rights in the minds of most Americans focuses on issues of race, gender and ethnicity ignoring the other aspects of civil rights which, through liberal interpretations and implementation, provide the tools for divisiveness and deprivation of rights to all Americans. The federal government since the January 1 1863 Emancipation Proclamation has worked on legislation to effectively eliminate racial discrimination.

        While the intent of the legislative initiatives was equal treatment and opportunities for all people, through late 20th Century implementation and parochial interpretations, the resultant legislation essentially infringed on the very basic rights guaranteed to Americans through the finely crafted and enacted Bill of Rights. Fringe groups , as supported by government officials at all levels, demand usurping the rights of the majority to satisfy their isolated groups demands for unreasonable sanctions against any/all things they dislike or find offensive in Americans life and culture.

        Generally, however, the government authorized sanctions provide a basis for selective double standards of implementation as well as blatant ignorance of the unacceptable consequences such interpretations and legislative acts perpetrate. Essentially, our law makers have failed to recognize the problems caused by their blind sided politically advantageous legislation as it applies to the self serving and disruptive elements of modern society. In failing to recognize the problem, our elected officials at all levels have failed us – their constituents – regardless of race, gender or ethnicity. In so doing they have created a divisive society of revolutionists and revisionists – essentially destroying our once legendary melting pot of humanity.

        The impetus for the mid 20th Century revisionist’s revolution in America came from the legitimate, long overdue and urgent need for dynamic and effective mandates to eliminate racial oppression and discrimination. The gains the racial initiatives in civil rights were achieved through decades of organization and persistent political lobbying, public protests, civil disobedience and at time violent urban core rioting. Extreme violence and injustices committed on both sides of the issue emphasized the need for positive and responsive government actions.

        In this respect, four(4) major legislative initiatives from 1948 through 1965 established the baseline for providing equal treatment and opportunities for all Americans regardless of race, color, religion or national origin.

President Truman’s hallmark 1948 Executive Order 9981 mandating “equality of treatment and opportunities for all persons in the armed forces ….” set the precedence for much needed reform and adjudication in defining and enforcing anti discrimination legislation applicable to all elements of American society.

President Johnson’s Civil Rights Act of 1964 provided the Federal Government the power to enforce desegregation the newly defined and refined Civil Rights mandates within the United States. This Act qualified and closed the loop on ant-discrimination through prohibition of discrimination of all kinds (again) based on race, color, religion or national origin. The 1964 Act further rectified discriminatory languages and allowances incorporated into the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Congressional passage of the Voters Rights Act 1965, amongst other provisions, essentially prohibits any state or local government from imposing any voting law which results in discrimination of any kind against racial or language minorities. However, a major provision which required states and local governments to seek federal approval for any changes to their election laws was rescinded by an August 2012 Supreme Court ruling based on and justified by, the results of the national election of a minority presidential candidate – Barak Obama 2008 and 2012

 President Johnson’s Executive Order 11246 enforcing Affirmative Action requiring government contractors to take “affirmative action” toward prospective minority employees in all aspects of hiring and employment.

        These essential Civil Rights initiative have turned into open-ended special privileges and priority treatment/consideration for individuals and groups falling within the politically correct expanded definition of minorities. Unfortunately, the definition of minorities has expanded far beyond logic and reason stretching to include self defined special interests groups focused on disrupting the social order of the United States and based on nebulous justifications for civil rights considerations.

        The series of programs and initiatives focused on guaranteeing equal treatment and opportunities for all Americans missed out on the resultant factors which deprive non target groups of their rights by guaranteeing extraordinary judicial interpretation of individual rights to others. These initiatives through extreme interpretations have turned essential civil rights programs into national mandates which focus on political correctness and civil discord. The extreme interpretations empower individuals and organized special interest groups,with judicial and government support, to abrogate the rights of others – catering to the minority and penalizing the majority.

        The politically correctness element of the abrogation of those rights is readily apparent in the divisive and self serving demands of the “exclusive rights” perpetrator. Take into account such divisive and contradictory application of infringements on basic rights as guaranteed by the first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution – the Bill of Rights:

First Amendment:

Regulation and curtailment of freedom of speech as controlled by society’s Political Correctness safety net to ensure no member of American society (citizen or not) is offended. However, in enforcing compliance with the basic precepts of Political Correctness , government and society mandates infringe on the rights of individuals they perceive to be politically incorrect. Consider, for example, the curtailment of freedom of speech when government mandates prohibition of:

The word God in oaths, pledges and public edifices inscriptions although the word God is the English language word for a divine being, wherein Allah is the Islamic, Deo is the Latin, Jehovah, HaVa and others are the Hebrew. In parallel with the prohibition of the word God, through establishment of arbitrary dress codes, educators have prohibited wearing of patriotic or religious symbols on the person, so as not to offend those elements of society who have no personal religious or patriotic convictions.

Yet, there are no government objections to religious practices, beliefs and displays of the Islamic faith when Islamic students in our public schools are allowed to wear their religious based clothing, conduct scheduled prayers on school properties and provided nutrients which comply with the Islamic dietary regimen.

Second Amendment:

Regulation and curtailment of the right to bear arms is a pervasive issue with the anti gun lobby whose demands are dutifully “two stepped” by our governing bodies at federal, state and municipal levels. Hierarchical levels of legislation, specifying constraints, allowances and conditions for possession and transport of firearms fill law libraries. What our legislators fail to appreciate (as a matter of two-speak political convenience) is that responsible law abiding citizen once approved for possession of fire arms do not present a problem for the community or law enforcement. Conversely, no amount of legislation or restrictions will prevent the criminal element from possession of fire arms – and that does create a problem for communities, law enforcement and the marginally protected citizens.

    The right to bear arms is derived from the English Bill of rights as described by Sir William Blackstone as ” a public allowance under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression”. Taking into account, 21st Century society, the Sir William Blackburn’s description of the right to bear arms is every bit applicable to today’s society as it was during its original codification in 1689. Unfortunately, however, overzealous legislators, attempting to be all things to all people, continually attempt to fix something that isn’t broken until they render that “something” into a totally dysfunctional entity.

        Considering that the Second Amendment is a federal law, and that states rights advocates establish state requisites and constraints on fire arms possession, there is no universal legislation to provide equity of possession rights throughout the United States. Thereby, depriving citizens equal rights of resistance and self-preservation when confronted with potentially imminent violent confrontations.

        The solution then is not to deprive, restrict or complicate law abiding citizen’s right to bear arms as a means of self defense but to establish universal possession criteria applicable to residence of the 50 states and to enforce those laws enacted with sufficiently severe penalties to deter and discourage illegal possession.

 Fourth and Ninth Amendments

  Denial of the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures has fallen victim to unfettered government encroachment. The government, through the rapid revolutionary advances in technology has the means, and has granted itself the absolute right, to violate the tenets of the Fourth and most likely the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution.

Within the wizardry of modern technology, electronics eaves dropping, spying and surveillance and capture (seizure) of electronic based communications, papers, and personal movements have become common place tools of our evolving autocratic government. NSA , under the guise of national security, has invaded the privacy and security of untold millions of American and foreign citizens.

Use of drones, computer hacking, dummy microwave transmitter (data collector) towers for telecon eavesdropping and coercion of major personal websites (such as Yahoo and Facebook) for turn over of users data are just some of the means employed for domestic spying. However, these tool and procedures for collection and ‘seizure’ of information (data) is accomplished without the knowledge of the targeted individuals. Similarly, most likely these operations are generally conducted covertly without properly executed warrants for search and seizure based on probable cause factors.

While the law is specific in respect to covert eaves dropping such as taping conversations, even the use of a tape recorder must be justified by probable cause judicial authorization. In this respect, the present Obama administration and preceding administrations, by virtue of their approval of NSA type activities against private citizens in general, appears to have violated the Ninth Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Twenty- first Century technology allows for Tera bytes (TB) of digital data sources to be selectively accessed, scanned and captured within a span of microseconds by any designated team of employees at the NSA or other data collection agency. It would be unreasonable then to assume that the mandated provisions of the Fourth Amendment …no warrants shall be issued, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” could or would be effectively applied.

The present administration has argued that electronics surveillance and eavesdropping do not fall within the constraints of the Fourth Amendment based on the need for and effective means to ensure national security. However, the basic premise of the Ninth Amendment ” The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” appears to refute that argument as justification for blanket broad-scope surveillance. Essentially, the Ninth Amendment forbids the federal government the right to establish its own rulings in respect to rights not specifically stated in the Constitution. Yet reports of continued federal government surveillance and data collection efforts are reported daily through multi media sources.

         Other areas of concern with the implementation of Civil Rights legislation is the inherent trend for over zealous compliance mandates and judicial interpretations thereof. The implementation and compliance issues when tested in court have been adjudicated based primarily on the individual’s unique qualification as a minority; whether that minority group in racial, ethnic, gender oriented, life style focused or any other category of self-defined “discriminated against” individual or group.

 legalized justification for unmitigated reverse discrimination based on race, gender, life style, national origin, citizenship and religious beliefs. Ensuring “affirmative action mandates” in disregard for qualifications and experience, essentially imposes prohibitive and discriminatory constraints on groups not recognized in the broad scope definition of minorities. Equally important is the impact on employers who of necessity, to avoid discrimination challenges in court, higher individuals based on the established/interpreted qualifications as minorities sacrificing qualifications and compromising quality work standards ;

granted priority (not equal) consideration for employment, promotions and advancements to the ever increasing scope of the definition of what constitutes a minority as well as giving special consideration and privileges for the vociferous self defined minority groups.

disenfranchised the male Caucasian middle class American worker and saddled him with unreasonable and unfair competitive constraints to deny him equal treatment and opportunity in the employment markets – essentially establishing a government sponsored defacto minority group deprived of equal employment opportunities;

marginalized adherence to acceptable educational standards by eliminating the competitive challenge to excel in academic and personal achievements, as a means to accommodate equality for academically, motivationally and physically challenged students;

– authorized a defacto double standard of law enforcement and legal processes by turning a blind eye and a prejudicial judicial system to kowtow special interests pressure groups – such as the riots in Los Angeles, the Wall Street sit-in and the latest debacle in Ferguson, Mo. The Constitution allows for protest and petitionof the federal government concerning grievances and injustices as specified in the First Amendment (Bill of Rights) to the Constitution. However, within that amendment the rights qualifier specifies “peaceful assembly” as opposed to the willful violent and abusive destruction of property and unmitigated civil disorder and discord. Yet, the extreme civil disorder (rioting – looting – burning) participants have little to fear in respect to incarceration or counter demonstration exercises by less than marginally effective law enforcement agencies.

– Fuels the fires for more unjustified civil unrest through adaptation of the separatist demands and threats of violence as expressed by the Leadership Coalition which included members of the Nation of Islam, the NAACP, the Black Panther party at Clayton, MO Courthouse. This group of protestors demand Grand Jury findings charge Officer Wilson with Murder without any consideration for evidence potentially pointing to justifiable self defense. If at any time our courts and law enforcement accede to these types of coercive demands our law enforcement and judicial system will continue to be held hostage to vigilante justice.

        And yet our legislators and judicial entities, supposedly guardians of the Constitution and rights of citizens, allow these injustices and divisive interpretations of Civil Rights mandates to continue unchecked or effectively challenged.

 

 

1 Comment

  1. Aptaernply this is what the esteemed Willis was talkin’ ’bout.