lawl so much for running two blogs.
Roxanne - 21 - free market advocate - caffeine addict - congenital whiner - in need of a "personal" political space.
Message me for my personal blog. If you like this blog, you may not like that one.
lawl so much for running two blogs.
As Congress focused last week on the so-called “indefinite detention” provisions of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), organizers of the “Nullify the NDAA” event in Los Angeles say that it’s states and local communities, and not Congress, who will ultimately put a stop to such powers.
Grassroots and media attention has turned towards Virginia, which became the first state in the country to reject, by law, participation in these newly-claimed federal powers. In Arizona, a similar bill is awaiting a signature from Governor Jan Brewer.
And, more than ten local governments around the country have already passed similar legislation, including the California cities of Fairfax and Santa Cruz.
“In the 1850s, when Congress passed a law to eliminate due process for runaway slaves, Northern States passed a series of “Personal Liberty Laws” to defy the federal act,” said Michael Boldin, executive director of the Tenth Amendment Center (TAC). He continued, “Some were so effective, like in Massachusetts, that after passage not a single runaway slave was ever captured by federal agents and returned to bondage in the South. It’s in that spirit today that states and local communities are standing up for due process and passing legislation known as the “Liberty Preservation Act.”
A recent Washington Post op-ed by former officials from the Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II administrations denounced such measures as “dangerously unconstitutional.” The op-ed authors also noted that a broad coalition was working together in support of the state and local efforts to reject NDAA detention powers.
“A great example of this growing coalition is our upcoming event in Los Angeles,” said John Michaels, national events director for the TAC. “We’ve partnered with the LA County Republican Liberty Caucus and Oath Keepers of California to host the event. And speakers there will include a Green Party member, a legal expert from the ACLU, and a representative from Antiwar.com. This is no partisan effort,” he continued.
What if Congress does not relent and keeps the NDAA in its current form? What if Court challenges fail? Do the states and people simply sit back and accept it? Or does a mechanism to protect their basic rights remain?
The Nullify the NDAA event in Los Angeles answers these questions.
The program, co-hosted by the Tenth Amendment Center and the Los Angeles County Republican Liberty Caucus, in association with Oath Keepers of California will be held at the Standard Hotel in Downtown Los Angeles on Thursday, May 3rd.
Event speakers will discuss the Constitutional issues with Sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA, historic examples of state and local legislation to resist threats to due process, current efforts in California and around the country, and action plans for grassroots activists.
“The Liberty Preservation Act isn’t based off some mystical legal principle buried in cobweb covered books. In fact, it’s so simple, a toddler can do it. You can explain it in one word – No!” TAC communications director Mike Maharrey said. “It’s a principle rooted in the Constitution and woven into the philosophical foundation of the United States. The Nullify the NDAA event makes the case in a captivating way.”
The Nullify the NDAA Event begins at 6pm
For more information, log on to http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullifyndaala/
Media credentials providing full access to the event and speakers available upon request.
The Tenth Amendment Center exists to promote and advance a return to a proper balance of power between federal and State governments envisioned by our founders, prescribed by the Constitution and explicitly declared in the Tenth Amendment. A national think tank based in Los Angeles, the Tenth Amendment Center works to preserve and protect the principle of strictly limited government through information, education, and activism.
The Los Angeles County Republican Liberty Caucus is a grassroots County chapter of a nationwide organization affiliated with the Republican Party (GOP). The mission of the RLC is to recruit and elect Republican candidates who are liberty minded. While they encourage the exchange of ideas, their primary goal is the election of Republicans that lean libertarian to all levels of legislative bodies; city, county, state and national.
Oath Keepers California is the state chapter of a non-partisan national association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, veterans, Peace Officers, and Fire Fighters promising to fulfill their Oath they swore to the Constitution of the United States. With the support of like-minded citizens, their motto is “Not on our watch!”
Lincoln: No more Slavery.
South: Fuck it man, we are committing treason, based solely on this one thing.
Grant: I have a beard.
If the state was a good guarantor of racial and gender equality, I’m sure that in one of these hundreds of “liberal” and “democratic” entities, there would be a significant tapering of such issues. However, the language of “equality” is often a brand of identity politics that seems to do less to raise awareness to the group in power, so much as it places the marginalized groups in more distinct other categories.
I understand that such distinctions are a commentary on the existing marginalization of certain groups, and that certain usage of collective identifiers is merely a means of resistance or quick movement-led identification, however the connection to state means of control is hard to overlook.
Societal ills will not vanish with the compete eradication of such constructs - state and group imposed - however, the argument that people in favor of an emphasis on individual liberties make is that breaking down large and easily-regulated communal groups to smaller units, like the individual, erodes avenues of control.
That is not to say that cultural or social identifiers must be spat on and discarded, though the political tendency to accept such identifiers as part of political ideology rather than personal and community preference is problematic where state control is concerned.
I can be American, Moroccan, Muslim, a woman and a student, but please do not sell your ideology to me on a basis of any of these identifiers. They are mine to choose and not to be yoked to by a state or political group.
One of my favorite tweeters and internet friend is libertarian Marine veteran, Jayel Aheram. Last night, he tweeted some commentaries on white libertarians, racism, and the Trayvon Martin case.
He wrote in several tweets, “I was hoping that the libertarian thought leaders I respected would write something insightful about the Trayvon Martin case. Still waiting. You know why it seems that libertarians are insensitive to racial disparities in this country? It is because most of them are white. Despite having the best solutions to solve racism, libertarians like to pretend that racism does not actually exist. It’s infuriating. Even among white liberals, there is a disconnect of the main issue and the Martin case. White liberals argue “Stand You Ground” or gun laws. White libertarians fall into the same trap. The real issue? Racist state meting out justice unequally against minority victims.”
I’ll have to agree with him. While I’m certainly not accusing all libertarians of being ignorant of racism, I can’t say that I haven’t seen this type of attitude before. As Jayel pointed out, some libertarians seem to think racism against minorities is no longer an issue. I’ve seen it both on here and in real life; many libertarians talk over minorities who voice their concerns about the justice system and law enforcement being an issue for them— especially Hispanic and black individuals.
A lot of people are uncomfortable with me for pointing this out, but these things I’m saying are not unfounded. Statistically, blacks are incarcerated in higher numbers and receive the death penalty in higher numbers. Furthermore, in a country where racial profiling of minorities and shootings of unarmed young black males happen all the time— a country with a Drug War that overwhelmingly destroys lower-class minorities and their families— nobody should deny that racism has life and death consequences for America’s minorities. No political ideology should dismiss the reality of race and what it means for many people. I know we’re all about being individualists. I know some of you feel uncomfortable admitting to just how prevalent racism is, and I also know that it’s aggravating when you have to deal with the way much of the Tumblr so-called “SJs” discuss race. Nevertheless, I feel like crass libertarians are as awful with sociology as liberals and neo-cons are with free-market economics. Some of you tell people that we’re all individuals or “one human race” in order to somehow defend the idea that racism isn’t as serious. We all are individuals and should be judged on our own merits, but please don’t conflate judging people on the merits of their character with completely ignoring that a person’s skin color can affect how they’re treated by others. You may judge others on personal merits only, but many people in the world do not. This especially affects a person of color’s daily life, and the sooner we recognize that, the better.
This is not to say that white individuals don’t experience discrimination and personal struggles— they do. Your skin doesn’t protect you from poverty, diseases, brutality, and a number of other horrible things; but I just want you all to realize that even though bad things happens to everyone, you still have the privileges that people of color don’t have when it comes to racial profiling and our Justice System, for the most part. You should not feel guilty about being white and you should not apologize for the skin you were born in, but you each should probably recognize that maybe, just maybe, you do enjoy some protections that you would not have had if you were a person of color. A lot this has to do with class and other things (like personal experience) as well, but please don’t ignore race.
Another thing I see often is libertarians trying to apply their personal stories universally. You may be a person of color who has never experienced the effects of racism (like me, for the most part) or you may be a white person who has experienced discrimination, and you share your stories, but you try to apply it universally. I’ve seen people say things like, “I’m white and I’ve been beaten so what about me?” or “I’m a person of color; I’ve never experienced racism so it’s not that bad, etc.” I used to say those things, too, but then I realize that the world isn’t just me and my experiences. A lot of people go through things that I can’t even fathom.
Refreshing and much-needed inter-libertarian commentary. Its also nice to demonstrate non-white libertarian voices.
A soldier helping a boy over the barbed wire. After the picture, the soldier was immediately replaced. God only knows what happened to him afterwards.
Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure.
— Robert LeFevre (via supertask)
Rational ignorance cannot explain why people gravitate toward false beliefs, rather than simply being agnostic. Neither can it explain why people who have barely scratched the surface of a subject are so confident in their judgments — and even get angry when you contradict them. Why, to return to the case of immigration, do people leap to the conclusion that immigration is disastrous, and have trouble holding a civil conversation with someone who disagrees? My view is that these are symptoms not of ignorance, but of irrationality. In politics as in religion, some beliefs are more emotionally appealing than others. For example, it feels a lot better to blame sneaky foreigners for our economic problems than it does to blame ourselves. This creates a temptation to relax normal intellectual standards and insulate cherished beliefs from criticism — in short, to be irrational. But why are there some areas — like politics and religion — where irrationality seems especially pronounced? My answer is that irrationality, like ignorance, is sensitive to price, and false beliefs about politics and religion are cheap. If you underestimate the costs of excessive drinking, you can ruin your life. In contrast, if you underestimate the benefits of immigration, or the evidence in favor of the theory of evolution, what happens to you? In all probability, the same thing that would have happened to you if you knew the whole truth.
Rational ignorance cannot explain why people gravitate toward false beliefs, rather than simply being agnostic. Neither can it explain why people who have barely scratched the surface of a subject are so confident in their judgments — and even get angry when you contradict them. Why, to return to the case of immigration, do people leap to the conclusion that immigration is disastrous, and have trouble holding a civil conversation with someone who disagrees?
My view is that these are symptoms not of ignorance, but of irrationality. In politics as in religion, some beliefs are more emotionally appealing than others. For example, it feels a lot better to blame sneaky foreigners for our economic problems than it does to blame ourselves. This creates a temptation to relax normal intellectual standards and insulate cherished beliefs from criticism — in short, to be irrational.
But why are there some areas — like politics and religion — where irrationality seems especially pronounced? My answer is that irrationality, like ignorance, is sensitive to price, and false beliefs about politics and religion are cheap. If you underestimate the costs of excessive drinking, you can ruin your life. In contrast, if you underestimate the benefits of immigration, or the evidence in favor of the theory of evolution, what happens to you? In all probability, the same thing that would have happened to you if you knew the whole truth.
Whenever people say that they are sane for voting for Obama in the coming election I sort of die inside. Obama is the sane choice? There is a choice? People tend to subscribe to personality cults in a way that truly frightens me.
Obama could claim presidential infallibility and there would still people be submitting support articles to ‘his’ Tumblr.
Just because you feel that you are voting for a more savory candidate does not mean that you are making a sane decision, that he is sane or that the system is sane. You are doing nothing sane. You are submitting to the same system that a Santorum supporter will be. You are merely voting in tune with your interests, as all Santorum supporters were.
I don’t think that there will ever be a day where people fully admit that they vote according to personal interest in regards to every candidate and party, because that would be an admission of greater individual self-interests.
You will continue to assert that you are voting because you are sane, principled and care about others. Buzz off. People advocate democratic systems for the sake of protecting their liberties, interests and groups that they identify with. Sometimes that changes, when the balance is tipped in or against their favor.