The Prometheus League
Breaking News and Updates
- Abolition Of Work
- Ai
- Alt-right
- Alternative Medicine
- Antifa
- Artificial General Intelligence
- Artificial Intelligence
- Artificial Super Intelligence
- Ascension
- Astronomy
- Atheism
- Atheist
- Atlas Shrugged
- Automation
- Ayn Rand
- Bahamas
- Bankruptcy
- Basic Income Guarantee
- Big Tech
- Bitcoin
- Black Lives Matter
- Blackjack
- Boca Chica Texas
- Brexit
- Caribbean
- Casino
- Casino Affiliate
- Cbd Oil
- Censorship
- Cf
- Chess Engines
- Childfree
- Cloning
- Cloud Computing
- Conscious Evolution
- Corona Virus
- Cosmic Heaven
- Covid-19
- Cryonics
- Cryptocurrency
- Cyberpunk
- Darwinism
- Democrat
- Designer Babies
- DNA
- Donald Trump
- Eczema
- Elon Musk
- Entheogens
- Ethical Egoism
- Eugenic Concepts
- Eugenics
- Euthanasia
- Evolution
- Extropian
- Extropianism
- Extropy
- Fake News
- Federalism
- Federalist
- Fifth Amendment
- Fifth Amendment
- Financial Independence
- First Amendment
- Fiscal Freedom
- Food Supplements
- Fourth Amendment
- Fourth Amendment
- Free Speech
- Freedom
- Freedom of Speech
- Futurism
- Futurist
- Gambling
- Gene Medicine
- Genetic Engineering
- Genome
- Germ Warfare
- Golden Rule
- Government Oppression
- Hedonism
- High Seas
- History
- Hubble Telescope
- Human Genetic Engineering
- Human Genetics
- Human Immortality
- Human Longevity
- Illuminati
- Immortality
- Immortality Medicine
- Intentional Communities
- Jacinda Ardern
- Jitsi
- Jordan Peterson
- Las Vegas
- Liberal
- Libertarian
- Libertarianism
- Liberty
- Life Extension
- Macau
- Marie Byrd Land
- Mars
- Mars Colonization
- Mars Colony
- Memetics
- Micronations
- Mind Uploading
- Minerva Reefs
- Modern Satanism
- Moon Colonization
- Nanotech
- National Vanguard
- NATO
- Neo-eugenics
- Neurohacking
- Neurotechnology
- New Utopia
- New Zealand
- Nihilism
- Nootropics
- NSA
- Oceania
- Offshore
- Olympics
- Online Casino
- Online Gambling
- Pantheism
- Personal Empowerment
- Poker
- Political Correctness
- Politically Incorrect
- Polygamy
- Populism
- Post Human
- Post Humanism
- Posthuman
- Posthumanism
- Private Islands
- Progress
- Proud Boys
- Psoriasis
- Psychedelics
- Putin
- Quantum Computing
- Quantum Physics
- Rationalism
- Republican
- Resource Based Economy
- Robotics
- Rockall
- Ron Paul
- Roulette
- Russia
- Sealand
- Seasteading
- Second Amendment
- Second Amendment
- Seychelles
- Singularitarianism
- Singularity
- Socio-economic Collapse
- Space Exploration
- Space Station
- Space Travel
- Spacex
- Sports Betting
- Sportsbook
- Superintelligence
- Survivalism
- Talmud
- Technology
- Teilhard De Charden
- Terraforming Mars
- The Singularity
- Tms
- Tor Browser
- Trance
- Transhuman
- Transhuman News
- Transhumanism
- Transhumanist
- Transtopian
- Transtopianism
- Ukraine
- Uncategorized
- Vaping
- Victimless Crimes
- Virtual Reality
- Wage Slavery
- War On Drugs
- Waveland
- Ww3
- Yahoo
- Zeitgeist Movement
-
Prometheism
-
Forbidden Fruit
-
The Evolutionary Perspective
Monthly Archives: August 2017
NC passes first Goldwater-based free speech law – Campus Reform – Campus Reform
Posted: August 4, 2017 at 1:00 pm
The state of North Carolina has officially enacted the first free speech law based on the legislative proposal by the Goldwater Institute.
The final version of North Carolina Restore Campus Free Speech Act passed the state Senate by a vote of 34 to 11 in late July, with all 11 Democrats voting against the legislation, National Review reported.
In the House, however, 10 Democrats joined their Republican colleagues to pass the bill by an 80 to 31 margin. The Democratic Governor Roy Cooper also allowed the bill to pass by taking no action on the legislation.
[RELATED: Growing number of states consider free-speech bills]
According to the report, the new law prevents the University of North Carolina administrators from disinviting speakers on campus. It also creates a system of sanctions that is designed to discipline individuals who suppress the right to free speech of others.
Moreover, the law authorizes the Board of Regents to create a special committee that will issue annual reports detailing administrative handling of matters related to free speech.
Stanley Kurtz, one of three authors behind the original Goldwater proposal, praised the passage of the bill and the support that it received from some elected Democrats.
That proposal, which I co-authored along with Jim Manley and Jonathan Butcher of Arizonas Goldwater Institute, was released on January 31 and is now under consideration in several states, Kurtz wrote in National Review.
Given the intense party polarization in North Carolina, the substantially bipartisan House vote was impressive. Governor Coopers decision to let the bill become law with no action is also interesting and instructive.
Kurtz also notes that the university successfully weakened several aspects of the bill, including the cause of action provision which would have allowed anyone whose expressive rights under the new law were violated to recover reasonable court costs and attorneys fees.
The university also succeeded in weakening the provision that designates public areas of the campus as public forums. Potentially, this would allow the university to cabin free speech to restricted zones, he argues while noting a special committee within the UNC Board of Governors should still serve as a check on administrative abuse on issues like free-speech zones.
[RELATED: Prof: college campuses are not free-speech areas]
Kurtz further stresses that the law does not contain a provision that would have suspended students who were found responsible for silencing other individuals more than once.
That provision is important for a number of reasons. First, the punishment is just. A student who twice silences visiting speakers or fellow students obviously hasnt learned a lesson from the initial punishment, he writes.
Second, since universities regularly ignore shout-downs or hand out meaningless punishments, the mandatory suspension for a second offense is the only way to prevent schools from undermining the law by handing out wrists-slaps ad infinitum.
Kurtz maintains, however, that any lax enforcement of the law will be documented in the annual report from the Board of Governors and could further lead to consequences for the administration.
Follow the author of this article on Twitter: @nikvofficial
See more here:
NC passes first Goldwater-based free speech law - Campus Reform - Campus Reform
Posted in Free Speech
Comments Off on NC passes first Goldwater-based free speech law – Campus Reform – Campus Reform
Liberals intent on eliminating free speech – New Castle News
Posted: at 12:59 pm
Liberals intent on
eliminating free speech
Editor, The News:
The First Amendment has been under incessant attack by the left for many years, and political correctness is just their latest weapon.
Years ago, Saul Alinsky and Frank Marshall Davis, both leftists, attacked freedom of speech and advocated communism. Davis was Obamas admitted mentor while he was in college, and Alinsky was a hero to Hillary Clinton to the extent she wrote a very favorable paper about him while at Wellesley. Obama appears to have a thing for communists because he tried to put Van Jones, another admitted communist, in his Cabinet.
Story continues below video
Camille Paglia, a feminist, suggested that her Democrat Party has been seized by ruthless thought police who desire to destroy free speech, and we see this on college campuses.
When conservative speakers attempt to voice their opinions at a college or university, they are shouted down, threatened and physically attacked, and the school suffers thousands of dollars in damages, like what happened at Berkeley. If conservatives dont want to hear an alt-liberal speak, they just dont attend the speech. And we found out by Podesta emails that billionaire George Soros paid black-hooded anarchists to destroy Republican rallies. On the right, the Koch brothers donated $100 million to find a cure for cancer.
Alinsky and Davis both taught that control speech, and you can control a country. Throw in Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers and you have a gaggle of America-haters who have had free reign for eight years.
Paul Dici
Ellwood City
Read the original here:
Liberals intent on eliminating free speech - New Castle News
Posted in Freedom of Speech
Comments Off on Liberals intent on eliminating free speech – New Castle News
Hubble Telescope Captures Mars Moon Phobos Orbiting Around The Planet – Gears Of Biz
Posted: at 12:57 pm
NASAs Hubble Telescope has captured a unique time-lapse movie of Martian moon Phobos as it orbited around the planet. In the sequence, Phobos emerges from behind the Mars and passes in front of the planet. The moon looks so small that it could easily be mistaken with a star.
Phobos is the larger of Mars two moons. It is closer to its host planet than any other moon in the solar system and it takes it just 7 hours and 39 minutes to complete an orbit.
Spotted! Mars tiny moon Phobos is seen during its orbital trek by @NASAHubble telescope. Watch the time-lapse: https://t.co/zpY505XhiF pic.twitter.com/R7TX6Xp9ho NASA (@NASA) July 20, 2017
Mars gravitational pull is drawing Phobos closer and closer. Every 100 years, the moon is approaching Mars by about 2 meters or 6.5 feet. As the moon is getting dangerously close to its planet, it could be shredded into pieces and likely form rings Saturn-like around Mars. Scientists predict that this could happen between 30 and 50 million years.
Thought Phobos is the largest moon of Mars, it is still one of smallest natural satellites in our solar system. The moon is 27 by 22 by 18 km in diameter and could easily fit inside Washington, D.C. Beltway.
The origin of Phobos is not yet fully determined. But researchers suspect that it could be caused by collision between Mars and another body.
Phobos may be a pile of rubble that is held together by a thin crust. It may have formed as dust and rocks encircling Mars were drawn together by gravity. Or, it may have experienced a more violent birth, where a large body smashing into Mars flung pieces skyward, and those pieces were brought together by gravity. Perhaps an existing moon was destroyed, reduced to the rubble that would become Phobos. NASA statement said.
The images of Phobos orbiting the Red Planet were taken on May 12, 2016 days before Mars came closest to the Earth in 11 years.
Read more:
Hubble Telescope Captures Mars Moon Phobos Orbiting Around The Planet - Gears Of Biz
Posted in Hubble Telescope
Comments Off on Hubble Telescope Captures Mars Moon Phobos Orbiting Around The Planet – Gears Of Biz
Burqa-clad Taliban suicide bomber targets Nato in Afghanistan – The Guardian
Posted: at 12:57 pm
US troops take part in a practice medical evacuation in Helmand province in Afghanistan last month. Photograph: Omar Sobhani/Reuters
A Nato soldier from the country of Georgia and two Afghan civilians have been killed after a Taliban suicide bomber dressed in a burqa rammed his motorcycle into an international convoy.
The attack on Thursday evening hit the Nato patrol near the town of Qarabagh, 18 miles (30km) north of Kabul, the Afghan capital.
It was the second suicide bombing in as many days that targeted Nato. On Wednesday, a suicide attacker hit a convoy on the edge of the southern city of Kandahar, killing two US soldiers and wounding another four. Responsibility for both attacks were claimed by the Taliban.
According to the US military, three other Georgian soldiers were wounded in Thursdays bombing, as well as two US service members and an Afghan interpreter.
The military said the wounded were in stable conditions and receiving treatment at the US military hospital at Bagram airbase, also north of Kabul.
The district governor in Qarabagh, Abdul Sami Sharifi, said the attacker concealed his explosives beneath the burqa. They were set off when he rammed his motorcycle into the patrol vehicles, Sharifi said.
The Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told the Associated Press by phone on Friday that one of its fighters from Takhar province carried out the attack at 8pm. He claimed 11 Americans were killed, although the insurgents routinely exaggerate their claims.
Meanwhile, in southern Helmand province, the Taliban stormed a market on Friday in the Gareshk district and fired at a nearby police station, according to the district police chief, Ismail Khan Khopalwaq. The market was closed and no casualties were reported in the attack.
More:
Burqa-clad Taliban suicide bomber targets Nato in Afghanistan - The Guardian
Posted in NATO
Comments Off on Burqa-clad Taliban suicide bomber targets Nato in Afghanistan – The Guardian
NATO Soldier Killed, 6 Injured in Afghanistan Suicide Bombing – One America News Network (press release)
Posted: at 12:57 pm
August 4, 2017 OAN Newsroom
A NATO soldier is dead and several others injured following a suicide bombing attack in Kabul.
The incident occurred Thursday, just a day after two American soldiers were killed in a Taliban claimed bombing in southern Afghanistan.
Reports say the ambushed convoy belonged to the U.S. military, and claim the suicide bomber was a member of the Taliban.
According to officials, the NATO soldier who died was not American, but no other details were released.
A NATO statement says those injured are being treated at a U.S. military hospital, and are in stable condition.
An Afghan policeman stands guard near to the site of a suicide bomber struck at a NATO convoy in Kandahar southern of Kabul, Afghanistan, Wednesday, Aug. 2, 2017. A suicide bomber struck a NATO convoy near the southern Afghan city of Kandahar on Wednesday, causing casualties, the U.S. military said. (AP Photo)
Excerpt from:
NATO Soldier Killed, 6 Injured in Afghanistan Suicide Bombing - One America News Network (press release)
Posted in NATO
Comments Off on NATO Soldier Killed, 6 Injured in Afghanistan Suicide Bombing – One America News Network (press release)
Judge sides with prosecution in Reality Winner NSA leak case | The … – The Augusta Chronicle
Posted: at 12:56 pm
A federal judge has sided with prosecutors in the case against former Fort Gordon contractor Reality Winner, finding that her defense team should be muzzled from speaking about any information deemed classified by the government, even if it has been widely reported in local, national and international media publications.
Winner has pleaded not guilty to a single count of violating a provision of the espionage act. She is accused of leaking a classified document to online media news publication, The Intercept.
That document was extensively reported on by The Intercept and numerous other news media organizations in stories on Winner, who is accused of leaking a national security document she allegedly obtained through her job with a NSA contractor on Fort Gordon.
The document is an analysis of the extent of Russias efforts to hack into state election boards. Russian meddling is the subject of U.S. Senate and House intelligence committees investigations and a special prosecutor who is looking into possible collusion between Trump supporters and the Russians during last years presidential campaign.
In his order released Thursday, Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps wrote that determining what is classified information is a function of the executive branch of government, not the judicial branch.
Just because the defense team has expressed concern of accidentally mishandling classified information is no reason to relax the strict procedures required, Epps wrote. The defense is not prohibited in using classified information in Winners defense, but it must follow the strict procedures, he wrote.
Both sides have until Aug. 16 to weigh in on Epps proposed protective order that describes the closely guarded handling of materials in the case. A classified information security officer is in charge of ensuring such information is handled only by those on the defense team who have obtained security clearance, and only in a secured location.
The defense is to have free access to that location during regular business hours, although other times may be allotted with proper notice and consultation with the U.S. Marshals Service, according to the order.
Any notes or other papers the defense may create using classified information is not allowed outside of the security location. Any document filed with the court that contains or might contain classified information must be filed under seal. Only those portions deemed not classified by the classified information security officer will be unsealed for public review.
At the end of the case any such defense-prepared material will be destroyed by the classified information security officer. The confines of the protective order are a lifetime commitment and any violation is punishable not only by a finding of contempt but criminal prosecution.
The publication of any classified information does not change the classified status unless a member of the executive branch of government with the proper authorization declares the information to be declassified.
Winners trial is tentatively set to begin in October.
Reach Sandy Hodson at sandy.hodson@augustachronicle.com or (706) 823-3226
Link:
Judge sides with prosecution in Reality Winner NSA leak case | The ... - The Augusta Chronicle
Posted in NSA
Comments Off on Judge sides with prosecution in Reality Winner NSA leak case | The … – The Augusta Chronicle
Interactive Constitution: Grand Juries and the Fifth Amendment – Constitution Daily (blog)
Posted: at 12:56 pm
What are the basic underpinnings of a federal grand jury? In the excerpt from the National Constitution Centers Interactive Constitution, Paul Cassell and Kate Stith lookat their origin as related to the Fifth Amendment.
The first part of the Fifth Amendment reads as follows: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger
Cassell, a University of Utah law professor, and Stith, from the Yale Law School, explained the presence of Grand Juries in the Constitution, in a common interpretation of the Fifth Amendment:
The first of the criminal procedure clauses requires that felony offenses infederal courtbe charged by grand jury indictment. (A grand jury is a panel of citizens that hears evidence that the prosecutor has against the accused, and decides if an indictment, or formal criminal charges, should be filed against them.)
This is one of only a few provisions of the Bill of Rights that the Supreme Court has not held to apply to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (the others being the Third Amendments protection against quartering of soldiers, the Sixth Amendments requirement of trial in the district where the crime was committed, the Seventh Amendments requirement of jury trial in certain civil cases, and possibly the Eighth Amendments prohibition of excessive fines).
That the Court has been reluctant to apply the grand jury requirement to the states is unsurprising. While the origins of the grand jury are ancientan ancestor of the modern grand jury was included in the Magna Cartatoday, the United States is the only country in the world that uses grand juries. In addition to the federal government, about half the states provide for grand juriesthough in many of these there exist other ways of filing formal charges, such as a prosecutorial information followed by an adversarial but a relatively informal preliminary hearing before a judge (to make sure there is at least probable cause for the charge, the same standard of proof that a grand jury is told to apply). As early as 1884, the Supreme Court held that the grand jury is not a fundamental requirement of due process, and Justice Holmes lone dissent from that judgment has been joined by only one Justice (Douglas) in the intervening years.
Recent scholarship has upset the previous understanding that the grand jury was from its inception venerated because it was not only a sword (accusing individuals of crimes) but also a shield (against oppressive or arbitrary authority). In its early incarnation in England, the grand jury was fundamentally an instrument of the crown, obliging unpaid citizens to help enforce the Kings law. Over the centuries, the idea of a citizen check on royal prerogative became more valued. By the time of the framing of our Constitution, both the grand jury (from the French for large, in sizetoday grand juries are often composed of 24 citizens), and the petit jury (from the French for smalltoday criminal trial juries may be composed of as few as six citizens) were understood, in both Britain and the colonies, to be important bulwarks of freedom from tyranny.
Few in the modern era would espouse such a view. The former Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals (that states highest court) famously remarked in recent years that because prosecutors agents of the executive branchcontrol what information a grand jury hears, any grand jury today would, if requested, indict a ham sandwich. While this is a useful exaggerationthe Supreme Court has held that federal grand juries need not adhere to trial rules of evidence, or be told of evidence exculpating the defendantfew prosecutors, fortunately, are interested in indicting ham sandwiches! Rather, the greatest advantage grand juries now provide (at least in federal courts, which are not as overburdened as state courts) is allowing the prosecutor to use the grand jury as a pre-trial focus group, learning which evidence or witnesses are especially convincing, or unconvincing.
At least in federal court, grand juries are here to stay. The institution is written into the Fifth Amendment too clearly to be interpreted away. Moreover, neither pro-law enforcement forces (for obvious reasons) nor allies of those accused (because occasionally grand juries do refuse to indictin the legal parlance, returning a no true bill) have reason to urge their abolition through amendment of the Constitution.
You can read more from Cassell and Stith on the Fifth Amendment, and matters of debate from different perspectives, at our Interactive Constitution at: goo.gl/dsDFKb
Filed Under: Fifth Amendment
Read the original post:
Interactive Constitution: Grand Juries and the Fifth Amendment - Constitution Daily (blog)
Posted in Fifth Amendment
Comments Off on Interactive Constitution: Grand Juries and the Fifth Amendment – Constitution Daily (blog)
The Second Amendment Won in Washington; Why Won’t the Supreme Court Enforce It? – Patriot Post
Posted: at 12:55 pm
The Right Opinion
Washington, DC, residents, you dont have to holster your Second Amendment rights anymore. Unfortunately, residents of many other states like California dont have the same ability that DC residents now do to protect themselves.
In a stirring victory for those who live in the nationals capital, a panel of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals recently threw out a DC ordinance that denied concealed carry permits to anyone who could not show a special need for self-defense, what is referred to as a good reason requirement. The problem is that other courts of appeal have upheld such restrictive laws and the U.S. Supreme Court has turned down appeals of those decisions, refusing to take up the issue of the Second Amendments application to carrying a weapon outside of the home.
This happened most recently at the very end of the Supreme Courts 2017 term in June when it refused to take upPeruta v. California,an appeal of a decision of the Ninth Circuit upholding Californias good reason requirement.
In a scathing dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas (joined by Neil Gorsuch) castigated the other justices for treating the Second Amendment as a disfavored right."He said it was long-past time for the Court to decide this issue and that he found it "extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen.
In theopinionover the District of Columbias concealed carry law written by Judge Thomas Griffith of the DC Circuit, Griffith pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Courts first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment occurred in 2008 inDistrict of Columbia v. Heller, where the Court threw out DCs complete ban on handguns as unconstitutional.
That decision is younger than the first iPhone. The Supreme Court did not outline how the Second Amendment applies to the carrying of a weapon in public, but as Griffith says,Hellerreveals the Second Amendment erects some absolute barriers than no gun law may breach.
AfterHeller,DC implemented a complete ban on concealed carry. That was struck down in 2014 inPalmer v. District of Columbia. DC responded by restricting concealed carry permits only to those who could show a good reason to fear injury. That required showing a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community as supported by evidence of specific threats or previous attacks.
Living in a high-crime neighborhoodwasnta good enough reason for a concealed carry permit under DCs regulation. In essence, you had to prove you had a good reason to exercise your constitutional right, a bizarre situation unique in American constitutional jurisprudence.
DC argued, absurdly enough, that its ordinance did not violate any constitutional right because the Second Amendment doesnt apply outside of the home.
Judge Griffith dismissed this claim, saying that the fact that the need for self-defense is most pressing in the home doesnt mean that self-defense at home is the only right at the [Second] Amendments core.
Obviously, the need for self-defense might arise beyond as well as within the home. Further, the Second Amendments text protects the right to bear as well as keep arms. Thus, it is natural that the core of the Second Amendment includes a law-abiding citizens right to carry common firearms for self-defense beyond the home.
Even underHeller, governments can apply regulations on the possession and carrying of firearms that are longstanding, such as bans on possession by felons or bans on carrying near sensitive sites such as government buildings. But preventing carrying in public is not a longstanding tradition or rule.
This opinion goes into detail discussing the long American and English history applicable to weapons and self-defense, going back as far as the Statute of Northampton of 1328 whose text, as the court says, will remind Anglophiles of studying Canterbury Tales in the original. But the state of the law in Chaucers England or for that matter Shakespeares or Cromwells is not decisive here.
What is decisive is that the Supreme Court established inHellerthat by the time of the Founding, the preexisting right enshrined by the Amendment had ripened to include carrying more broadly than the District contends based on its reading of the 14th-century statute. According to Griffith, The individual right to carry common firearms beyond the home for self-defense even in densely populated areas, even for those lacking special self-defense needs falls within the core of the Second Amendments protections.
Unfortunately, other federal courts of appeals have upheld similar good reason laws for concealed carry permits. But as Judge Griffith points out, those courts dispensed with the historic digging that would have exposed that their toleration of regulations restricting the carrying of a weapon is faulty.
The constitutional analysis that should be applied to all government gun regulations is that they must allow gun access at least for each typical member of the American public. Because DCs restrictive good reason concealed carry law bars most people from exercising their Second Amendment right at all, it is unconstitutional. At a minimum, the Second Amendment must protect carrying given the risks and needs typical of law-abiding citizens.
The court drew together all the pieces of its analysis in this way:
At the Second Amendments core lies the right of responsible citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home, subject to longstanding restrictions. These traditional limits include, for instance, licensing requirements, but not bans on carrying in urban areas like D.C. or bans on carrying absent a special need for self-defense. In fact, the Amendments core at a minimum shields the typically situated citizens ability to carry common arms generally. The Districts good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on exercises of that constitutional right for most D.C. residents. Thats enough to sink this law under Heller I.
One of the judges on the DC panel, Karen LeCraft Henderson, dissented, arguing that the core right in the Second Amendment is only to possess a firearm in ones home and she saw no problem with DCs good-reason requirement.
That dissent, along with the contrary decisions of other appeals courts, shows why the Supreme Court needs to follow Justice Thomass admonition and finally settle this issue. As Thomas scolds in his dissent inPeruta:
For those of us who work in marble halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it.
Republished from The Heritage Foundation.
Continued here:
The Second Amendment Won in Washington; Why Won't the Supreme Court Enforce It? - Patriot Post
Posted in Second Amendment
Comments Off on The Second Amendment Won in Washington; Why Won’t the Supreme Court Enforce It? – Patriot Post
Historic Battle of Athens Shows Importance of Second Amendment – Newsmax
Posted: at 12:55 pm
Some American political and human events in history are intentionally overlooked by those responsible for teaching and analyzing them.
The nation rightfully celebrates the civil rights movement and the March on Selma. Our children are taught about womens suffrage and Susan B Anthony. The left loves to evoke memories of the Vietnam antiwar demonstrations. Modern day movements such as gay and transgender rights, the Womens March, and the Occupy movements are celebrated in the media.
How many of you have ever heard about the major event that occurred in our country that shows the importance of your Second Amendment rights? The "Battle of Athens" was the perfect example of why our founding fathers were so brilliant as to include "the right to keep and bear arms" in our Constitution.
On August 1, 1946, there was a primary election in McMinn County, Tennessee. The two major towns in the county are Athens and Etowah. Political corruption and election fraud were concerns of the local citizens. The United States Department of Justice even investigated the allegations in the three elections prior. During those elections, most of McMinn Countys young men were off fighting World War II. There was even an incident where two servicemen home on leave were shot and killed by the sheriffs deputies.
At the end of the war, approximately 3,000 experienced veterans returned to McMinn County. The GIs had known about the troubles back home, even while fighting overseas. They were not happy about what had been going on. They organized and actually put forth an "all G.I." political ticket for the primary. These ex-servicemembers promised fair elections and ballot counts.
In response, the local sheriff brought in 200 armed deputies. Poll observers, mostly GIs, were intimidated and beaten. One poll watcher was even shot. Multiple other incidents occurred and the sheriff decided to take the ballot boxes to the jail for counting.
Not trusting the sheriff, the local veterans gathered firearms and ammunition. After organizing and planning, they surrounded the jail. There was many exchanges of gun fire. Sometime during the early morning hours of August 2, the GIs made their move. Using dynamite to damage the building, they forced the surrender of those inside. The GIs posted guards to secure the ballots. When the votes were counted, the corrupt officials had been voted out.
I encourage you to research and share this event as a celebration and illustration of law-abiding American citizens using our Constitutionally-protected firearms for the betterment of our society and protection of our freedom.
The Battle of Athens is a major event in American history that is wrongly ignored by our educational system, our media, and our government officials. That alone should demonstrate why we Second Amendment supporters should hold the event up for all to see.
Use the Battle of Athens as an example to show your children what free men should be willing to do to protect that freedom.
Use the Battle of Athens to demonstrate to the media why gun control is antithetical to the Constitution and our freedoms.
Use the Battle of Athens to let our leaders know that we are in charge.
John Cylc is an eight year U.S. Army veteran. He is also a contributor to LifeZette. To read more of his reports Click Here Now.
2017 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Continue reading here:
Historic Battle of Athens Shows Importance of Second Amendment - Newsmax
Posted in Second Amendment
Comments Off on Historic Battle of Athens Shows Importance of Second Amendment – Newsmax
McGovern: Free speech may mean free pass for Michelle Carter – Boston Herald
Posted: at 12:55 pm
The First Amendment and the winding road of the appellate process are the only things keeping Michelle Carter out of jail.
And the constitutional issue may be what sets her free forever.
Carter, who yesterday was sentenced to 212 years behind bars with only 15 months to actually serve was given a last-second reprieve by Judge Lawrence Moniz. He held off on the punishment at the behest of Carters attorneys who argued that she shouldnt be jailed for a conviction that may not stick.
This is a novel case involving speech, said Joseph Cataldo, Carters lead attorney. These are legitimate issues that are worthy of presentation to the appeals court.
The crux of the argument is that Carter didnt commit a crime when she convinced Conrad Roy III, through texts and phone calls, to get back in his truck as it filled with deadly carbon monoxide fumes. Her communications, according to Cataldo, were protected by the First Amendment.
Massachusetts does not have an assisted-suicide or an encouragement of suicide law in place, and this is violative of the First Amendment, Cataldo said outside court.
Some may remember that the Supreme Judicial Court already ruled on this case and allowed Carters involuntary manslaughter trial to move forward in 2016. However, the high court did not fully tackle the First Amendment ramifications that surround the case.
In his decision, former Justice Robert Cordy mentioned the First Amendment only three times all in footnotes and brushed over the idea that Carters speech may have been protected without a hefty analysis.
But other courts that have dug deeper into this thorny issue have come out differently. In Minnesota, for example, the states high court struck down a law that prohibited people from encouraging or advising suicide, finding that the statute violated the First Amendment.
Speech in support of suicide, however distasteful, is an expression of a viewpoint on a matter of public concern, and, given current U.S. Supreme Court First Amendment jurisprudence, is therefore entitled to special protection as the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values, the court wrote in its 2014 decision.
Cataldo has 30 days to file his notice of appeal, and from there the trial court record will be put together and a time frame will fall into place. It could take a year, or it could drag on longer. The SJC can, on its own, grab the appeal before the state Appeals Court hears it a move that would show the high court is particularly interested in the case.
I think that will happen here. Two years ago, SJC Chief Justice Ralph Gants told me that his court wasnt interested in calling legal balls and strikes. No, he said the SJCs job is to set the strike zone and dictate clear precedent that other courts in the commonwealth need to follow.
This is one of those cases. In our evolving digital age, where we can communicate with a touch of a button, its important to outline when a text or call or tweet becomes criminal.
Yesterday, Bristol prosecutor Maryclare Flynn seemed to notice that Moniz was about to set Carter free pending her appeal and made a last-ditch effort to change his mind.
This is not a suicide case, she said. This is not a First Amendment case.
Maybe not, but now a high court will have to decide whether or not its both.
See the rest here:
McGovern: Free speech may mean free pass for Michelle Carter - Boston Herald
Posted in First Amendment
Comments Off on McGovern: Free speech may mean free pass for Michelle Carter – Boston Herald







