Bill Whittle Identifies the Problem, and the Solution | Must Watch

I have watched in horror over the past 50 years, but especially in the last ten or so, as our freedoms are simply swept away with impunity and arrogance. Bill Whittle lays it out as clearly as anyone I've ever seen. And the good news is, he has a solution. Watch & learn.

 

 So the video was taken down eh? Okay, YouTube, I'll try and find it elsewhere.

Try this... It's even bigger, longer, and uncut...

 

If that doesn't work, go here instead...

Property Rights No Longer Exist -- In the United States?!

Illegitimate means illegal. Against the law. Nobody in charge cares, and nobody who cares has the power to do anything about it. This is the most frightening time in my entire life. I have never seen anything like it. 

Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid.

 

The Second Amendment & Federalist No. 29: Concerning the Militia

Federalist No. 29 (full text) was an attempt by Alexander Hamilton to allay the fears of the Anti-Federalists of the risk of a National Guard, or "Well Regulated Militia" from getting out of hand, and oppressing the citizens.

From the Daily Advertiser | Thursday, January 10, 1788 | Author: Alexander Hamilton

The Anti-Federalists were fearful of the strength and centralization that this new Constitution would bring to the federal government. The Federalist Papers were op-ed pieces published anonymously by several Federalists to support the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. The Federalist Papers give us some of the most illuminating insight into what the founders were thinking.

In Federalist 29, Alexander Hamilton appears to be arguing in favor of a militia, even as a law-enforcement body, and rejects the idea that such a militia would be of any significant risk to citizens of the United States. Hamilton argues that we need not fear our sons, fathers and brothers, even if they are commanded by an executive magistrate. In fact, Federalist 29 uses the term “well-regulated militia” and variations on that phraseology. That turn of phrase seems to be well recognized in the lexicon of the time to describe the kind of national defense being contemplated.

James Madison believed that the Constitution, with its enumerated powers, would be sufficient to limit government specifically to the functions and authority granted therein. However, many were not so convinced. James Madison and others were finally persuaded to go along with the idea of a Bill of Rights – given the very real risk that the Constitution would not be ratified without it. If we think of the Articles of the Constitution as the “white list” of powers that the federal government should have, the Bill of Rights would be the “black list” of things that no good government would ever do. The Constitution granted certain powers to the federal government; the Bill of Rights guaranteed protection to the citizens from the government.

So Federalist 29 actually reinforces my conviction that people were worried that the federal government would have a “well-regulated militia”, so much so that Alexander Hamilton felt compelled to write Federalist 29, ridiculing that concern as being unfounded. But in the end, the Bill of Rights allowed that “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The first clause, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State”, acknowledges the need for the federal government to have armed services at its disposal, but the Bill of Rights guarantees that “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, lest We the People lose control of our government.

The Bill of Rights was never intended to provide more power to the government; quite the reverse. The Bill of Rights was always intended to prevent the government from ever becoming tyrannical and oppressive. So any attempt to morph the Second Amendment into an instrument of authority for mustering a national guard, would be a distortion of grave proportions. The Second Amendment was intended to protect individual citizens from government, just like all nine of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights.

The Donald: Not Your Father's Ronald

I have heard Donald Trump being compared to Ronald Reagan. Just yesterday, in fact. I'm sorry, but Donald Trump is in no way similar to Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was principled about freedom and the Constitution. Ronald was humble. Ronald was gentle. Ronald was witty. Ronald could stay on point. Ronald spent many years in the bull pen, warming up for his gig.

But we get the politicians we deserve. Our culture has coarsened considerably since the early 1980s. From defining deviancy down, to the kind of language we tolerate on TV and in public. I still tend not to use words in public that I would not use in front of my parents. How about you?

There's this article by Mychal Massie, making the rounds on Facebook today.

As someone who takes pride in being self-aware and principled, I don’t need endless memos and researched anecdotes to peel back the layers of pretense to expose the real Donald Trump. I know exactly who the man is; he’s an opportunist, a narcissist and borderline megalomaniac, who lives for the thrill of the hunt. However, he’s also a closer, a shark, and a shrewd businessman who embodies America exceptionalism: a concept that forged the most powerful and affluent nation in less than two centuries and an ideal liberals have worked tirelessly to eradicate.

I find it very convincing. I wish I didn't still have this sick feeling about putting up a Trump sign in my yard. It just makes me feel dirty. But I know Trump is probably the only viable choice this November.

People like me and Ted Cruz blathering on about the Constitution don't get any traction. Reagan still had the benefit of civics education in public schools to fall back on. He didn't have to fill in the blanks, to blank stares, like we do. Unfortunately, it is a manifest conflict of interest for government run schools to teach of limited government. What do you expect from them? Go, school choice! Given the recent tyrannical bathroom mandate, school choice might indeed be seeing a revival. 

Meanwhile, we got Trumped. He might not be any less tyrannical than the current tyrant, but at least he's my tyrant. Until civics and the founding constitutional principles are once again taught to our young, we can expect more of the same. 

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." ~ Benjamin Franklin

A Better Pledge of Allegiance

I have always objected to the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. A flag is a graven image. It represents something, but it doesn't define anything. I think the Constitution of the United States is the thing that all Americans, not just politicians, in their all too soon forgotten oath of office, should be pledging allegiance to, and pledging to uphold and defend. We can still stand and salute the flag while we're saying it, but here's what I think we should say:

I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America. And to the republic, which it defines: One nation, with individual liberty, natural rights, and equal justice for all.

I deliberately omitted the words "indivisible" and "under God".

I omitted indivisible, because the Constitution does not deny states the right to secede if they believe the federal republic is destructive to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness (including property rights) of the citizens of those states.

I omitted "under God" in favor of "natural rights", which has the same meaning to everyone, regardless of faith. Natural rights come from nature, or nature's God, and not from government. Government cannot grant rights; it can only protect them. Government cannot create new rights; they already exist. They're natural. "Under God" means "natural rights" to Christians, but not everyone else "gets it".

Also notice that I changed "justice for all" to "equal justice for all", to distinguish it from "social justice". Social justice is a form of social engineering that uses the government to redistribute wealth according to how a select few think it should be distributed. Equal justice means everyone is treated the same under the law, and it is up to individual citizens to decide how best to care for one another.

The Constitution cannot uphold and defend itself. We the People must demand it. Repeating the pledge of allegiance to the Constitution at every public gathering would go a long way towards reminding people to demand it, and our public servants to heed it.

Ich Bin Ein Constitutionalist

What is a constitutionalist? A person who respects the Constitution, and the principles it represents.

I frequently say, "The US Constitution is STILL the official specification for the United States; the binding contract between We the People and our government. Any regime that distorts or disregards our Constitution is untrustworthy and dangerous."

How untrustworthy? How dangerous? I think we're beginning to find out.

Why Salute the Flag?

I always thought it was rather silly to salute the flag. The flag is a symbol; I get that, but the Constitution is really the definition of the American form of government, and it is really what We the People need to get behind. It is the only thing that stands between us and tyranny. The Constitution cannot uphold and defend itself. We the People must demand it. Unfortunately, there is a concerted effort to discredit and disregard it.

To push back, I propose the following instead:

I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America.
And to the republic, which it defines: One nation, under God, with liberty and equal justice for all.

See what I did there? I said "equal justice", to distinguish from "social justice", which gives government the authority to play favorites. 

Bill Ayers can trample the flag, but Barack Obama tramples the Constitution. Which is worse? Can we make this go viral? 

The President is Dead! Long Live the King!

This was on Drudge Report today. It stinks on ice, and everybody knows it:

BANNED FOR LIFE!
Clowns ordered to 'sensitivity training'...
Announcer, rodeo president resign...
'I know I'm a clown, Obama just running around acting like one, doesn't know he is one'...
MO CONTROVERSY SPIRALING OUT OF CONTROL...
NAACP: DOJ, Secret Service Should Investigate...

Ahem! I attended county fairs and rodeos since my high school days in Idaho, in the early '70s. During that time, I saw rodeo clowns wearing (in order of appearance), Nixon masks, Ford masks, Carter masks, Reagan masks, H.W. Bush masks, Clinton masks (Bill & Hillary - and Monica - the whole famn damly!) ... and (wait for it!) ... G.W. Bush masks. 

And now, someone dares to wear a Barack Hussein Obama mask, and everyone goes bat-scat crazy? Hey, Barack Obama is president, not freaking emperor! Of course, I guess we can't expect Obama voters to be familiar enough with the Constitution to make that distinction. 

Unless ... unless ... this is about racism?! But no! I thought we're supposed to hold all presidents to the same high standards, regardless of race. And when we think they fail to live up to those standards, the First Amendment guarantees the right to treat them with the same reproach and ridicule, regardless of race. 

I hope this tempest in a teapot has the result of enhancing this rodeo clown's career in the long run. And I hope it helps to shine an even brighter light on the ass clown in the white house.

Update: This is a good read.

IRS Corruption

Apologists for the IRS targeting certain groups for audits and application delays (the ones having "tea party" or "patriot" in their descriptions) will tell you that the IRS was overwhelmed by a multitude of applications from groups like these in the days prior to the 2012 election. These were the groups who wanted to make sure Barack Obama did not win re-election. As the argument goes, so many applications were received, that the agency had to filter out fraudulent claims of non-partisanship and non-profit status. You have been profiled! I guess what's not OK to do in airports is just fine to do at the IRS. It depends on whose ox is being gored.

I have heard people say that everyone should be outraged by this corruption, because although this transgression targeted the right, a future regime could target the left, and no-one is immune as long as government agencies are allowed to run unconstrained. It's a good argument, and maybe some people will believe it. I don't, and here's why:

1. The IRS is populated by career bureaucrats whose future earnings depend on a growing government.
2. The IRS is populated by unionized bureaucrats who are opposed to the founding principles. 
3. Many 'progressives' are of the Chicago/Alinsky thugocracy model (cf., the current regime), which teaches that the end justifies the means. While they are in power, they will use and abuse that power to accomplish what they believe is necessary and right. Not all 'progressives' work this way, but enough do to keep things ratcheting in the wrong direction.
4. Classical Liberals (LibClassics) believe in the founding principles (including Judeo-Christian values), which teaches that it is wrong to take advantage of political power, even to accomplish what they believe is necessary and right. This is by definition in the principles they hold. (By this definition, Richard Nixon was not a LibClassic.) Classical Liberals aren't holier than thou, but those principles are what makes them LibClassics.

Lib Classics are a rare breed in government. I am afraid the deck is stacked for more tyrannical, illiberal, corrupt government. 

You Have Been Warned

My Dad sent me this:

It's probably photoshopped, because I doubt that any government these days actually supports the Second Amendment. It represents a threat to them (as it was intended). They would never put up a sign like this.

Actually, the Second Amendment was intended as a threat to oppression and tyranny. If our government feels threatened by the Second Amendment, what does that tell you about our government?

Update: What is oppression and tyranny? That is when someone makes you do things you don't want to do, and takes things from you that you don't want to give up. How is that different from violent crime? It isn't! Someone making you hand over your wallet at gunpoint is oppressing you, tyrannizing you. If you had a gun, you could resist this tyranny. And here's the beautiful part: even if they didn't know if you had a gun, you could resist this tyranny. The Second Amendment guarantees your natural right to resist tyranny. A government that infringes on that right is by definition, tyrannical. Don't be fooled.

The Official Specification for The United States

I used to think The Constitution would protect me. It will, but only if We the People insist on it. That hasn't been happening lately. The Constitution can't uphold and defend itself. Americans need to hear 365 days a year, something like The Pledge of Allegiance. It goes like this:

1. The United States Constitution is still the official specification for the United States of America. 
2. It is the binding contract between We the People and The US Government. 
3. The Constitution lists the specific services that the US Government agrees to provide for its citizens. 
4. We the People agree to pay taxes to cover the cost of those specific services, nothing more, nothing less. 
5. The Bill of Rights lists the ten things that must always be observed, period. 
6. The terms & conditions of The US Constitution can only be changed by following The Amendment Process. 
7. Any regime that distorts or disregards The Constitution is untrustworthy and dangerous. 

It is my contention that the majority of social and political problems in this country could be avoided if everyone understood and observed these seven points. 

We the People must insist that our elected representatives live up to their oath of office to uphold and defend The Constitution.

Toys for Boys, or Tools for Patriots?

Amendment II -- A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

There are a lot of people saying that we're about to cross a line here, to which I have to ask, "what part of infringed do you not understand?" The word means weaken, destroy, violate, encroach. Folks, we crossed that line a long time ago!

Here's my concern: I have always said that The Constitution of the United States is still the official specification for the US government; the binding contract between We the People and our government. Any regime that distorts, deconstructs or disregards it is untrustworthy and dangerous. If we crossed that line a long time ago, what does that say about the regime? What does that say about We the People, for tolerating it?

By the way, it isn't just the second amendment at risk here. In 1913, congress abrogated its responsibility to regulate the money supply, and created The Federal Reserve System. We did nothing. In 1935, the regime imposed a mandatory retirement plan called Social Security. We did nothing. In 1965, the regime imposed a mandatory health care plan called Medicare. We did nothing. In 2011, the regime imposed a mandatory health care plan called ObamaCare. We re-elected them! It may be debatable whether these are great services, but they are "feature creep" -- grotesque usurpations of power, to name just a few, but we tolerate them. So, what does that say about us, indeed?

Dear reader, this is where the rubber hits the road: are we going to allow our government to infringe on our constitutionally guaranteed rights, or not? If not, what are we going to do about it? This is a scary question that separates the men from the boys. It's a deadly serious question. It isn't a radical question; it is the most conservative, liberal (in the truest sense of the words), question there is. Think carefully.

An article entitled, If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight? has gone viral on the web. It's the kind of stuff that gets people labeled as extremists. But is it extreme to demand that government live by its own rules? If government won't, isn't it up to We the People to force it to? The author makes some provocative arguments. You should go read it. I'll wait here.

The Constitution has been so effective at constraining government for the first 150 or so years, that we have become too complacent, too trusting of our government. As a culture, we have forgotten how easy it is to lose our freedom. Thomas Jefferson noted in The Declaration of Independence, 

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Our government has the might to take, or control our guns any time it wants. It can do it illegally, as it is doing now, or it can do it legally. If there wasn't a danger that government would abuse its power, we wouldn't need the Bill of Rights -- the first ten amendments to The Constitution. But We the People can decide as a nation that the second amendment is obsolete, and repeal it. Then it would be legal for government to attempt to regulate guns out of existence, if anyone really believes that is possible. However, before we throw the baby out with the bath water, we should note that freedom is very empowering. But with great power, comes great responsibility. Freedom is risky. 

For example, the founders put the freedom of speech in the first amendment, to prevent government from persecuting people who discuss politics openly and question the authority of government. That is the benefit. The risk is that people will be irresponsible, and abuse that right. Pornography is a result. Shouting, "fire" in a crowded theater (when there is no fire) is a result. 

Similarly, the second amendment exists for a variety of reasons: hunting, self-defense against wild animals (including humans), and not to put too fine a point on it, to give would-be tyrants and oppressors something to think about. That's the benefit. The risk is that people will be irresponsible, and abuse that right. Gun related crime is a result. Opening fire in a crowded theater (when there are no oppressors) is a result. 

I know that gun ownership isn't for everyone. People focus on the lives lost to gun violence, but can't account for all of the violence that doesn't happen because the bad guys have to guess which good people carry. Responsible gun owners can protect those who choose not to be -- in the vast majority of cases, with nary a gun in sight, nor a shot being fired. 

The illusion is that we can live in a world without risk. The illusion is that government can provide security without abusing the power it would need to provide it. Responsibly equipped, I'd rather take my chances with a few deranged individuals, than I would with a renegade regime that distorts or disregards its constitution in order to provide the illusion of protection and the reality of oppression.

Inalienable Rights

It was pointed out to me that some people might have no idea what inalienable rights are. Inalienable rights are the rights that we are born with (among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). Thomas Jefferson cites three important examples in the Declaration of Independence, but the actual number is indefinite.

The word inalienable means "incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred". From this we know:

• Government cannot grant rights: We the People retain our inalienable rights (by definition!), and with those, we voluntarily grant specific authority to government. We did that when we ratified The Constitution of the United States, and subsequently, the state constitutions, and county and city charters. The only way that government can legally and morally assume more authority is through the informed consent of the governed; that is, by constitutional amendment.
• Government cannot create rights: We do not have a right to food, clothing, shelter or health care. We have a right (and a responsibility) to obtain those things by honest labor, but to demand that someone provide them for us, would infringe on their right to keep what they earned -- it is called theft. We have a moral obligation to help those who are down on their luck, and unable to provide for themselves -- this is called charity. However, government hasn't the authority to compel us to provide for anyone -- not even ourselves -- that is called slavery.

SOPA Support Crumbles under Pressure

A few days ago, I posted a letter I sent to my representatives in Washington, D.C. Apparently, it (and millions like it, as well as Google blacking out their logo, and Wikipedia going completely dark) got their attention. Heritage Action for America reports:

This week, controversial legislation that could result in government censorship of the internet and stifle innovation came under fire. Supporters of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA), which claim to crack down on online piracy overseas, started peeling off the bills.

A day before any popular websites launched protests on Wednesday, Heritage Action released its key vote against SOPA and PIPA. It was picked up around the country, and thanks to dedicated conservatives taking action, made a big difference in Congress: (Continue reading...)

Keep slogging, anti-kakistocrats! It's an uphill battle. The natural progress of things is to deteriorate without maintenance. Our liberty requires maintenance.

Letter to Larsen, Murray and Cantwell

I sent this short message to my congressman and senators:

Please reject SOPA/PIPA: Which article of The Constitution authorizes government to do that? Please check. See also, The First Amendment.

Please do not let special interests stampede you into usurping our natural rights. We the People granted a few of them to the government to exercise on our behalf. Our right to free speech wasn't one of them.

Must we beg our government not to uslurp our right to free speech? It should go without saying. If we continue along these lines, it will have to.

---

Update -- Senator Cantwell responds:

Dear Mr. Uppiano,

Thank you for contacting me about the internet streaming of copyrighted material. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.

On May 12, 2011, Senator Leahy (D-VT) introduced S. 968, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property (PROTECT IP) Act. While I am supportive of the goals of the bill, I am deeply concerned that the definitions and the means by which the legislation seeks to accomplish these goals will have unintended consequences and hurt innovation, job creation, and threaten online speech and security. On November 17, 2011, I signed a letter along with Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) objecting to the bill as it is currently written.

On December 17, 2011, Senator Wyden introduced the "Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade" (OPEN) Act (S. 2029), of which I am an original co-sponsor. The bill has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee, where it is currently awaiting further review. The OPEN Act is a more effective approach to stopping foreign web sites that are found to be primarily and willfully used to infringe intellectual property rights. The OPEN Act builds on the existing legal framework used by the International Trade Commission for addressing unfair acts in the importation of articles into the United States, or in their sale for importation, or sale within the United States after importation.

Our trade laws have yet to catch up to deal with the global digital economy. The OPEN Act recognizes that the Internet has created new opportunities for foreign products to reach the U.S. market and that there is little difference between downloading a pirated movie from a foreign website and importing a counterfeit movie DVD from a foreign company. For those foreign web sites that are determined after an investigation to be primarily and willfully infringing, the International Trade Commission will issue a "Cease and Desist" order. The "Cease and Desist" order may also be served on financial intermediaries that provide services to that foreign web site, compelling financial payment processors and online advertising providers to cease doing business with the foreign site in question. This would cut off financial incentives for this illegal activity and deter these unfair imports from reaching the U.S. market.

The OPEN Act addresses the same challenges as the PROTECT IP Act, while protecting freedom of speech, innovation, and security on the Internet. The challenge of rogue web sites is one that many nation's face. The United State has always been seen as a leader on Internet issues. Laws we establish in the United States regarding the Internet are likely to be used as models around the world. And because the Internet is global in nature, it is important that we carefully consider how the laws and policies we adopt in this area may be received and translated by other countries.

Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter. You may also be interested in signing up for periodic updates for Washington State residents. If you are interested in subscribing to this update, please visit my website at http://cantwell.senate.gov. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,
Maria Cantwell
United States Senator

For future correspondence with my office, please visit my website at
http://cantwell.senate.gov/contact/

Now I'll have to go study the OPEN Act. It may take some time to ascertain which article of The Constitution gives government the authority to do this.

---

Update -- Congressman Larsen responds:

Dear Mr. & Mrs. Uppiano:

Thank you for contacting me about the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA). I wanted to update you on my views on this important issue.

I am opposed to SOPA and PIPA in their current forms. I believe that these bills create unacceptable threats to free speech and free access to the internet. I have heard from many of you in Northwest Washington who are deeply concerned about the potential impacts of SOPA and PIPA.

Online piracy is a serious problem that costs U.S. businesses billions of dollars. Government agencies must be empowered to stop and prosecute intellectual property thieves. But in doing so we cannot undermine freedom of speech or jeopardize the free flow of information on the internet. I will work with my colleagues to see that any final anti-online piracy legislation protects the internet and does not encroach on free speech rights.

Please be assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind should I have the opportunity to vote on any legislation that would impact online piracy and internet freedom on the House floor.

Again, thank you for contacting me. I encourage you to contact me in the future about this or any other issue of importance to you.

Sincerely,

Rick Larsen
United States Representative
Washington State, 2nd District

Ferndale Oath of Office

On Tuesday, January 3, I witnessed the new members of the Ferndale City Council being sworn in. Here's what they promised, in front of God and everybody:

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Washington, and that I will faithfully and impartially perform and discharge the duties of the office of [Title of Appointed Official] in and for the County of Whatcom, State of Washington, according to law and to the best of my ability, so help me God.

It is important to note that The Constitution of the United States and the State of Washington are included therein. The question I intend to ask (whenever necessary) is, "Which article of The Constitution gives government the authority to do that?"

This isn't some kind of "gotcha" moment. I simply believe that this is a fundamentally important question to ask. We the People are sovereign; government derives its just power from the consent of the governed. Those powers (and no more) are enumerated in The Constitution(s) and the City of Ferndale charter, as granted to government on our behalf by our forebears when they ratified or amended those documents.

The Road to Serfdom

I'm reading The Heritage Foundation edition of The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich A. Hayek. I ran across this passage, which should be of interest to OWS as well as Tea Partiers. According to Friedrich A. Hayek,

Great danger lies in the policies of two powerful groups, organized capital and organized labor, which support the monopolistic organization of industry. The recent growth of monopoly is largely the result of a deliberate collaboration of organized capital and organized labor where the privileged groups of labor share in the monopoly profits at the expense of the community and particularly at the expense of those employed in the less well organized industries.

Hayek also says that it is bad government policy that allows monopolies to develop and flourish. I think OWS is missing part of the picture, and I think some conservatives are in denial about crony capitalism and government. Of course, if our politicians would follow The Constitution, these problems would be much less severe. Unfortunately, politicians being a product of the government education system, know bupkis about the founding principles or The Constitution. So nothing will really change until we fix the ignorance problem.

Hayek wrote this book in 1944, and things certainly appear to be much worse now than they were then.

Time for the Alternet?

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has now circumvented checks by congress and the courts, in their bid to regulate the Internet. Started during the first big wave of the "progressive" movement with the Communications Act of 1934, the FCC has always been the government's tool for regulating technology, commerce, and of course, information. When it was first created, the FCC was regulating the then-new technologies of interstate and foreign telegraph, telephone, cable, and radio communications. Where in the Constitution did We the People give government the authority to do that?

By establishing a few strategic choke points on business, the government has very powerful control over content. Where in the Constitution did We the People give government the authority to do that? If radio stations want to keep their FCC license (i.e., stay in business), they have to comply with reams of technical, legal, business and content regulations. Even for a small mom-and-pop station, it requires at least one full-time employee just to stay in compliance. See section 73 and section 74 of the FCC Broadcast Rules. But wait, there's more! Much more! I know. I used to be the chief engineer (First Class Radiotelephone Operator License P1-13-10705) for just such businesses. The excuse given for this overwhelming government take-over in 1934 was to ensure freedom from interference and to set up international and interstate compatibility standards. Never mind the fact that the free market could have done the same, and in fact, was already moving in that direction. Where in the Constitution did We the People give government the authority to do that?

Now, the functional equivalent of radio stations -- the connection to the general public -- Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are in the cross-hairs. If they don't comply with FCC regulations, the government can fine them, or revoke their license (i.e., put them out of business). Where in the Constitution did We the People give government the authority to do that? From the government's perspective, this free-wheeling, wild and woolly internet has been free long enough. With things like conservative blogs, pornography, WikiLeaks, the threat of ISPs setting up tiered pricing in order to manage a limited resource (bandwidth) using the tried-and-true free market approach of charging more for something of higher value, the FCC wants to step in and control all of it. Especially information. But it also has its eye on "monopolistic" ISPs that might do something "greedy". Never mind the fact that I am at liberty to terminate my internet service any time I don't like my provider's terms and conditions. I really don't need the government's help with this non-essential frill. It's nice to have, but my survival does not depend on it.

I don't like the government being in control of my information sources. Radio, television and the Internet are today's free press. Or free speech. Since government has now seized the Internet, I think it is time for patriots and free thinkers everywhere to consider establishing the "Alternet", the free alternative to the Internet.

The Internet was built on research and technology from ARPANET. ARPANET packet-switching technology was intended to provide multiple routing options over an unreliable network, such as you might find on a battlefield. Today's computers and routers are built on top of protocols and modular technology that is now owned and operated by private citizens worldwide. Whenever you set up a local area network (LAN) and wireless network (WI-FI or WLAN), you are installing a miniature version of the Internet in your own home. Obviously, home routers are not up to the task of industrial-grade networking, but folks, We the People are in possession of the right technology and know-how to set up the Alternet. Certainly, there are logistical hurdles to overcome. But we shall overcome. Google is working on a self-driving car, for crying out loud. The Alternet would be child's play by comparison. We cannot let the government control our dialog, our information or our liberty.

P.S., you remember short-wave radios, and the Citizen's Band (CB) craze of the 1970s and 1980s? You might want to look in your attic, and dust off those old relics. See if they're still working. We might need them.

P.P.S., it appears that the name "Alternet" (or AlterNet) has already been taken. According to Wikipedia, "AlterNet, a project of the non-profit Independent Media Institute, is a progressive/liberal activist news service." Doesn't that just figure. Well, "Progressives" don't like copyrights and private ownership anyway, so I'm sure they won't mind if we use "Alternet"!

"Support for this government take-over of the Internet is provided in part by: the Pew Charitable Trusts, Bill Moyers's Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, the Joyce Foundation, George Soros's Open Society Institute, the Ford Foundation, and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and by contributions from other suicidal NPR supporters like yourself."

Uphold and Defend

I have been crafting a statement about the Constitution and our founding principles that is both simple and powerful at the same time. Something that could be a plank in a party platform. Something that works as a sound bite. Something that could "go viral" on the internet. I think I finally have it:

The US Constitution is still the official specification for the United States of America.
It guarantees equal justice for all, and protects your life, liberty and prosperity.
Any regime that distorts or disregards its original intent is untrustworthy and dangerous.

Please help this go viral. Ask candidates what they think about this statement. Ask candidates who agree with it, to use it in their campaign. Ask candidates who disagree with it, to defend their position. Ask tea parties to use it in their messaging.