Tag: constitutional right

Why The Coordinated Removal Of Alex Jones Should Have Us All Worried

Spencer Kellogg | @TheNewTreasury

“Freedom of speech is meaningless unless it means the freedom of the person who thinks differently.” – Rosa Luxemburg

Alex Jones has been silenced.

The first amendment to the Constitution is not a poem. It was not scribbled, in jubilant prose, between recesses on the playground schoolyard. It’s an adult tragedy and morbid testament to the way of things as they really are. Free speech was meant for the lunatics as well as the poets. A document with no trace of the ideological molasses of postmodern bourgeois liberal mores, the first amendment is a passage saturated in the true and dark nature of how humans are and how they speak. And it belongs to all of the citizens of the United States whether conservative, liberal, socialist or fascist.

We have always been brutes. No wild invention, or scientific marvel, or intersectional ideology, or organic elixir has ever cured the same disease that inflicts all societies. Alex Jones is a particular king of brutes patently made for the 21st century. Behind his blistering blue Infowars set, Jones’ voice booms out to an audience of millions. As much as he’s a blowhard for the right wing, he’s certainly not a Nazi in the traditional sense (you know, like Hitler and such). Jones has always sounded like a 4th way John Birch, paleo-American, pro-gun, conservative of the anti-empire stripe. More than anything though, he’s a bully showman. Jones all but agreed to that assessment when his lawyer admitted that his on-screen rantings were Jones “playing a character.

What kind of character is Jones? He is loud, obnoxious and unceremoniously conspiratorial. His cartoon riot eruptions have brought him fame, fortune and a dedicated, rabid fan base that defends him (like Trump) with a deity-like fervor. He is also the great ire of the neoliberal left who suggest that his words are hurtful and thus grounds for removal from the society run by polite technocrats. Jones styles himself as a relentless renegade against a perceived tyranny that sits atop American and global politics. Puffing out from under his too small sports coat, he has become the quintessential king of the soulless, shrieking lizard brain of western media.

It wasn’t always that way. Earlier in his career, Jones was known as a wild card with a principled libertarian streak who stood at the forefront of a new form of in your face guerilla video journalism. Always sitting on the fringe of the critical conservative lens, Jones built his career and platform through public access t.v. in Austin, Texas and in 1995 was removed from a rally for then-governor of Texas George W. Bush after demanding The Federal Reserve and The Council For Foreign Relations be abolished.

Alex_Jones_(12844952283).jpg

Wikipedia

It was the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting that threw a massive mainstream spotlight onto Jones for all of the wrong reasons. During his coverage of the event, Jones insisted the shooting had “inside job written all over it” and that “Sandy Hook is a synthetic, completely fake, with actors, in my view, manufactured. People instinctively know there’s a lot of fraud going on but it took me about a year to come to grips with the fact that the whole thing was fake.” Jones had gone too far. In those moments he let his obsession with the elites, the government, and the all-consuming paralysis of a ‘man behind the curtain’ conspiracy cloud any rational sense of judgment and today he is paying for it. In the courts, Jones is being sued by family members of Sandy Hook. I fully believe he should be punished for those comments. But how much is too much and what do we all give up if we allow these giant tech corporations to unilaterally purge a member of society.

Jones ban on four of the largest media hubs is suggestive of a creeping, aggressive dogma that seeks to quiet the major, key tenet of our first amendment – the right to say whatever you want. The forced removal of his social media accounts by Apple, Facebook, Youtube & Twitter within a 12-hour censor spree on Monday, August 6th should have us all worried. It is just another in a long string of troubling signs for American civil rights as we navigate the nascent age of big technology monopolies. If nothing else, Jones’ ban is representative of the streamlined capacity for today’s tech giants to redefine the terms of free speech in the United States with one swift, coordinated swoop.

While Antifa and other left-wing ideologues are rarely censored for speech, Conservatives and anti-imperialist isolationists have found that sharing their opinions in the forums of thought centralization is often met with fierce censorship. Whether it is Infowars, Austin Petersen, Candace Owens, or the staff at AntiWar.com, opinions that sit squarely outside the neoliberal underpinnings of the San Francisco corporate matrix will be sharply persecuted.

Facebook and Twitter have seen drastic falls in their stock prices recently due to falling membership numbers as many commentators on both platforms have loudly and consistently declared their distaste for the censorship rules. The multi-platform ban on Jones looks like a coordinated attack on free speech from the unelected technocrats of Silicon Valley. Behind computers thousands of miles away from Congress, four technology monopolies have decided to silence one of the most watched personalities in the country.

Jones is not a good guy in all of this. If his accounts were all plugged back into the psycho grid tomorrow, I wouldn’t hit the follow button. But this isn’t about me. This is about that scintillating idea of wild freedom that made the United States a nation of booty twerkers, root farmers, low riding mafiosos, cigar smoking pioneers and unabashed ranchers pissing in the wind. We were made to respect the rights of a person to think and speak as they wish if no threat or harm of violence is done to another human. No matter how ugly the words.

Where does this end? Who is next? And when will they come for you?


To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Featured Image Source

Advertisements

3 More Of The Worst Supreme Court Rulings

By Jack Parkos | United States

The Supreme Court has a rich and controversial history. In my previous article, I discussed 6 of the worst rulings in history. Unfortunately, it doesn’t end at six cases. There have been plenty of horrid rulings that didn’t make the first list.

1. Plessy V. Ferguson

This case is widely regarded as one of the most infamous rulings in US history. In a vote of 7-1, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of states segregation of public facilities. The doctrine of “separate but equal” was established here. But, as we all know, the public services were not equal. This ruling went against the enlightenment values of equality in the eyes of the law. While the case was overturned by “Brown v. Board of Education”, we still remember the shameful time in history when this was allowed.

2. Slaughter House Cases

This was one of the early interpretations of the 14th Amendment. The water supply of New Orleans was contaminated by animal urine and blood from slaughterhouses. The city tried to move the slaughterhouses south to protect the water supply, but since the slaughterhouses were outside city limits, the city had no authority.

The city then appealed to the state legislature who gave the city of New Orleans the ability to centralize the slaughterhouses. The city created areas that butchers could rent out while banning butchering anywhere else, which caused other businesses to close. The city had created a monopoly on slaughterhouses. A group of butchers called Butchers’ Benevolent Association formed to sue the city to stop the monopoly. They claimed their 14th amendment rights had been violated.

On a decision of 5-4, the Supreme Court ruled that the butchers 14th amendment rights had not been violated. The claim was that the 14th Amendment only protects from the federal government and not the states. The court also claimed that the 14th Amendment was meant to protect slaves and that the butcher’s claims were a stretch. This ruling is dangerous. Of course, states rights are important, but the states shouldn’t have the right to violate constitutional rights. This court case allowed the state to do so.

3. Hans V. Louisiana

Bernard Hans owned bonds issued by Louisiana, and Louisiana law was to change rendering his bonds invalid. Hans claimed Louisiana was entering with his contract which is forbidden in the Constitution. Hans sued Louisiana in the United States District Court. The 11th Amendment of the Constitution bans citizens from one state from suing another state, yet the amendment did not state if someone could sue their own state. The court also looked at an essay by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 81.

It has been suggested that an assignment of the public securities of one State to the citizens of another, would enable them to prosecute that State in the federal courts for the amount of those securities; a suggestion which the following considerations prove to be without foundation.It is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of an individual without its consent.

This is the general sense, and the general practice of mankind; and the exemption, as one of the attributes of sovereignty, is now enjoyed by the government of every State in the Union. Unless, therefore, there is a surrender of this immunity in the plan of the convention, it will remain with the States, and the danger intimated must be merely ideal. The circumstances which are necessary to produce an alienation of State sovereignty were discussed in considering the article of taxation, and need not be repeated here.

A recurrence to the principles there established will satisfy us, that there is no color to pretend that the State governments would, by the adoption of that plan, be divested of the privilege of paying their own debts in their own way, free from every constraint but that which flows from the obligations of good faith. The contracts between a nation and individuals are only binding on the conscience of the sovereign, and have no pretensions to a compulsive force.

They confer no right of action, independent of the sovereign will. To what purpose would it be to authorize suits against States for the debts they owe? How could recoveries be enforced? It is evident, it could not be done without waging war against the contracting State; and to ascribe to the federal courts, by mere implication, and in destruction of a pre-existing right of the State governments, a power which would involve such a consequence, would be altogether forced and unwarrantable.

This assured that the Constitution would prevent a citizen from one state from suing another state in a federal court. It said nothing about someone suing their own state.

This would be up to the Supreme Court. It is important to note that the Constitution gives the federal court the power over any cases involving the Constitution. This was Hans’ argument.

The Supreme Court ruled and gave the state immunity. They claimed the Founders “could not conceive” the idea of someone suing their own state. Saying that the framers of the Constitution “could not conceive” an idea is ridiculous. That is like saying because the Founders couldn’t conceive the idea of the internet, we don’t have privacy rights on the web. The argument against suing another state may make some sense to you, but a citizen suing their own state over a constitutional in a federal court should be allowed, this is obviously stated in the Constitution.

These were a few more rulings that went wrong. They spat on the Constitution and threatened liberty. Trump’s choice for the SCOTUS nomination will determine the future of our Constitution. I hope that the Supreme Court will not make choices that require a part 3.


To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Featured Image Source.

Thomas Massie Suggests 2016 Libertarian Ticket Was “Never Really Libertarian”

Spencer Kellogg | @TheNewTreasury

Earlier this week, President Trump’s press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked to leave The Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia due to her support of the President’s stance on illegal immigration along the southern border of the United States. While the action by the Red Hen staff has drawn derision from both conservative and liberal commentators alike, principled libertarians have pointed out that private businesses possess a constitutional and free market right to not do business with a customer on the basis of ideological or religious preferences.

Reason magazine was among the first news outlet’s to point out the hypocrisy of ‘bake the cake’ liberals who believe the Red Hen staff has a right to pick and choose their patrons based on ideological preference but demanded a Colorado baker make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple. Representative Thomas Massie agreed with the magazine and went a step further on Monday when he condemned what he sees as an anti-libertarian platform pushed by Gary Johnson and Bill Weld during their 2016 bid for the White House.

Screen Shot 2018-06-25 at 5.35.24 PM.png

By tweeting the 2016 LP presidential ticket was “never really a libertarian ticket” Massie is putting his finger squarely on the button that has energized so many within the libertarian base to push for new leadership in the party ranks ahead of their bi-annual convention this weekend in New Orleans. Libertarians, by their very nature, are a contrarian bunch that enjoys debating the nuances of liberty that crop up across the country and in 2016 the major ideological quarry inside the party’s membership was regarding a Colorado baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple. Johnson, the front-runner, and eventual nominee stood firm in his belief that government has a right to force association by private businesses regardless of religious belief.

In a 7-2 ruling released in early June, The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Masterpiece Cakeshop and owner John Phillips. The ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated that Phillips had a right to refuse service to customers based on religious freedom: “The religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.” Two of the major tenants of libertarianism are freedom of association and free market capitalism. To follow each of these to their logical conclusion is to believe that private businesses possess a right to refuse service on the basis of religious or ideological grounds and that the market, instead of the state, should be the ultimate arbitrator in that businesses’ windfall.

It remains to be seen if the tweet made by Massie is an indication of any Presidential aspirations that the Representative may have himself. Regardless, Massie’s statement is a stark refutation of Governor William Weld, who is assumed by many in the Libertarian Party to be one of the candidates running for its Presidential Nomination in 2020.


To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Featured Image Source

Joe Hannoush – Libertarian for Florida House District Twenty-Five

By John Keller | Florida

Joe Hannoush is the Libertarian candidate for District Twenty-Five of the Florida House of Representatives. He has been involved with libertarian politics since 2011 and seeks to bring that change to the state of Florida.

Keller: With a plethora of career options, what inspired you to seek a career in politics?

Hannoush: I am not pursuing a career in politics per se. I want to do what I can to inform others of a better solution to issues we face today. Running as a candidate for elected office is a great way to spread that message. I want to be the change I want to see. I am tired of complaining without offering a solution. I didn’t like the choices I had on my ballot, so I gave myself another option to vote for!

Keller: Many people when they think of government they think of Congress or the presidency. Why is politics at the state level, and in the state House of Representatives, so important and motivated you to get involved?

Hannoush: There is a saying “all politics is local”. To a certain degree, I agree. When it comes to the everyday things, it is usually the local government decisions that have the largest impact on an individuals life.

Keller: For over 150 years the United States has been locked in the two-party duopoly. What turned you on to the Libertarian Party?

Hannoush: In 2011, I took an online political quiz www.isidewith.com. The results told me my views most closely agreed with was the Libertarian Party. So I did more research on their platform and looked into the presidential candidate on the Libertarian Party ticket, Gary Johnson. I liked him a lot and found I agree on almost everything. So I voted for Gary in 2012 and the rest is history!

Keller: Being a swing state, Florida has both strong Democratic and Republican support, as well as significant moderate support. Why is a new voice, such as a libertarian, necessary in the two-party system in Florida?

Hannoush: The two-party system is not a good one even if the two parties are Libertarian and Anarchist. I believe in more choices and I know others do as well. I don’t care if I agree with other political parties or not, they deserve to get the same media exposure and debate and ballot access as the Republicans and Democrats currently do.

Keller: Florida is often brought to the political forefront, and were put into the national spotlight during the sanctuary city debate, a debate that still exists today. Where do you stand on your critical issue?

Hannoush: I believe an individual, whether they are a citizen of the United States or not, deserve the same freedoms I have. My parents left an oppressive government and came to the United States shortly before I was born. Because of that freedom to act for the betterment of life, liberty, and happiness, I have a freer life. I want that opportunity to exist for others as well.

Keller: Our Founding Fathers even disagreed on how to interpret the Constitution, shown in the Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist debates. What is your interpretation of the Constitution, and how does that influence your view on government?

Hannoush: My view of the Constitution is what I believe the Founding Fathers generally intended. That is that individuals have inherent rights and the Constitution instructs the Government on how to preserve those rights for the individual. 

Keller: Libertarians tend to believe less government is better government. What is one area of government, however, you would like to see operating?

Hannoush: I do believe that national defense is the responsibility of the government.

Keller: Branching off of the last question, what is one area you think there should be cutbacks or even elimination in the state of Florida?

Hannoush: Florida, being a “swing” or “purple” state has led to the two major political parties here to be very divisive. There is too much power in the “leadership” of the political parties. No one is defending the rights of the people. The letter next to a person’s name holds more power than what that individual believes. I want to end partisan politics in Florida. A candidate that is giving the libertarian message will win every time.

Keller: What can the people of District 25 expect should you be elected?

Hannoush: That I will be a voice for the individual. I won’t vote based on what party leadership or lobbyist agenda is being pushed.

Keller: If someone was interested in getting involved or donating, how can they reach out to your campaign?

Hannoush: paypal.me/joehannoush

Keller: Do you have any final remarks for the readers?

Hannoush: I am currently pricing campaign materials and need as much funding as possible to help spread the message. Please donate to my campaign at paypal.me/joehannoush and follow my campaign at facebook.com/joehannoush and email [email protected] Thank you!

I would like to thank Joe Hannoush for his time. Be sure to visit his website and get involved!

How The Whiskey Rebellion Changed America

By Jack Parkos | United States

In my previous article, I talked about the Gadsden flag. I have the Gadsden Flag and the First Navy Jack Flag. Since then, I decided to start a collection of Early American Flags. The most recent addition to my collection is the Flag of The Whiskey Rebellion.

713b3HpqeQL._SX355_.jpg

It got me thinking, how many people actually know about the Whiskey Rebellion? I asked a sampling of random people, and only 20% knew what the flag was. Some people remember hearing the name in high school but knew nothing about it. The majority of people don’t know the historical event the flag seeks to immortalize. Some may argue this is the most important event in early America, as several things came out of it.

The Whiskey Rebellion was a tax protest by farmers and distillers from 1791-1794. The tax was introduced by Alexander Hamilton. After the revolution, many states were in major debt Hamilton had the Federal Government take on all the debt and to pay off the debt, he proposed a tax on whiskey. Thomas Jefferson and the anti-federalists opposed the tax. However, Congress still passed this tax, making it the first tax imposed on a domestic product.

However, this tax was very unfair to small farmers and distillers, for the large producers got taxed less per gallon. So the government gave bigger producers the advantage over the smaller guy (sound familiar?). This angered both farmers and whiskey distillers.  With the spirit of the American Revolution and this anger, the defiance began.

Some congressmen tried to appeal to protestors by enacting a very minor reduction on the tax. But the protesters were not satisfied; people refused to pay these taxes and often intimidated tax collectors. The angry mob would feather the tax collectors, often forcing them to resign out of fear of further violence. Robert Johnson, who was tarred and feathered, reported them, but the man who later delivered the court warrants was also tarred and feathered.

The violence against tax collectors continued. With some having there homes burned down by the mob. The protesters believed they were fighting for the principles of the American Revolution, No taxation without (local) Representation. On the other side, the Federalists argued it was a fair and legal tax by congress. Whoever is right, is up to your own opinion.

But President Washington, who was originally opposed to the tax,  faced a bigger problem than politics: the mob had been burned down houses and participated in violent protest and property destruction. A rebel army had been raised. Washington wanted peace, while Hamilton wanted to send men into Pennsylvania. When peace failed, Washington gathered and led 12,000 men in a state militia into Western Pennsylvania. There was no rebel army, so suspected rebels were gathered and tried for treason. Two men were found guilty of treason, but both were pardoned by Washington. While the law remained, the tax was still evaded, but most violence stopped. The tax remained law until Anti-Federalist Thomas Jefferson, who opposed Hamilton’s taxes, repealed it in 1802.

This is a big event in American history. It showed that the United States Federal Government was legitimate in it’s authority to pass and enforce laws. This event contributed to the formation of the first two political parties in America. People who had been Anti-Federalist started voting for Democratic-Republicans and accepted the Constitution. The Federalists also started to be more accepting in First Amendment rights.

This event raised the question. “Was the violent rebellion a legitament form of resistance under the new constitution?” The Whiskey Rebels believed they were fighting under the same principles as the revolution and that people had the right to challenge the government, even if in extreme ways . The Federalists believed that because the new government was by the people that such methods were no longer needed. This question, raised by the Whiskey Rebellion is a very important one to understand.

The Whiskey Rebellion changed America. It was more than a bunch of riots. It caused a lot of people to think, it caused political tension, and lots of change to American Politics.


Featured Image Source.