Any Conservatives After Santorum? – Chairman’s Reply

Continued from the initial letter Any Conservatives After Santorum?

The Chairman’s reply:

Dear Mr. Foster:

Thanks so much for your thoughtful email. It's very rare to get a reasoned, respectful email from a Ron Paul supporter. It is appreciated.

CP-USA has always acknowledged that Ron Paul has a sound fiscal and monetary platform.  We actually adopt some of his ideas like auditing the Federal Reserve and budget cutting goals.  However, we sharply depart from Paul on his drug, immigration and foreign policies. Allowing the Iranians to acquire nukes, for example, is a recipe for disaster. As a whole, Ron Paul is a good man, a good family man and a great American. But he's also a Libertarian. CP-USA wants limited government as outlined in the Constitution, not zero government as outlined by Ron.  

Thanks again for your communication.  I hope Ron Paul influences the GOP during the Convention and the election.  But there is a BIG question I have for you and other Paul supporters: will you work and vote for Romney in the general election if he's the GOP nomination?

Best Regards,

Harold Hervey

National Chairman

Conservative Party of America

My counter-response:

Mr. Chairman,

Thank you for your speedy reply, and I'm glad to know you've adopted some of Dr. Paul's ideas.

Regarding Iran and their nuclear program, I never expected that to become America's battle; in all honesty, mighty Israel has a much better track record of putting thug regimes in their place, at least in the middle east.  I have full confidence in Prime Minister Netanyahu to liberate himself from the ditherers in our own government and simply take necessary action against the threat.  Israel did just that against Iraq in 1981, and though the Congress moved to condemn Israel for "attacking Iraq," Dr. Paul stood against them and defended Israel's right as a sovereign country to defend herself.  If Israel were to handle Iran, Dr. Paul would support them again.

There are also misconceptions of his drug policy.  What he plans to do is repeal the Federal War on Drugs, not legalize drugs altogether.  This is because this neo-Prohibition hasn't worked, much like alcohol prohibition didn't work in the 1920s, but instead gave rise to organized crime when the alcohol market was driven underground into the black market, where alcohol was more scarce and risky, thus more expensive but more highly profitable for moonshine kingpins, and also more worthy of defending with violence against police and other alcohol runners.  Once Prohibition was repealed, crime levels plummeted below 50% of what they formerly were. Simply put: being able to go to the pub or the liquor store for alcohol made it no longer necessary to buy it from the local bootlegger gang.  Author Tom Woods of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History (a selection of the Conservative Book Club) and Nullification makes this sharp statement on the war on drugs:

Under Dr. Paul's plan, rather than use the federal government to impose itself on states, it allows the states to make their own laws either for or against various drugs.  Furthermore, greater empowerment of the states to pursue their own enforcement policy.  With more empowerment to the states, I see them better able to empower families, churches, hospitals, and local police departments (i.e. the community) to lessen drug use rather than Federal over-reach and a one-size-fits-all approach.  This also frees federal law enforcement and military to be stationed on the Southern border, helping to keep our country safe from invasion.  I also see more empowerment for states to use their police forces better, much the way Sheriff Joe Arpaio is doing in Arizona, ignoring federal ineptitude and turning the situation into a local issue with a local remedy.  Paul is by no means for no government, but rather, less federal government in exchange for more localized government.  This is Constitutionally sound, since the 10th Amendment states that powers not specifically given to the U.S. government are given to the States and the people.

In regards to whether I'll throw my support behind Romney, the tentative answer is 'not now.'  First and foremost, my candidate is in it to win it, he's not in debt, and he just got a nice sweep of delegates over the weekend.  I guarantee you that I'll work for him to be the nominee til the bitter end.  And then if he drops, I may support Romney ONLY if he radically changes his moderate Diet Coke policies.  But the way he is right now is something neither one of us finds acceptable.  Moreover, why settle for Diet Coke instead of Coke when we can choose the Constitution candidate?

Right now Romney is the lesser of two evils, but the lesser of two evils is still evil.  At least the greater of two evils gives us a clear-cut example of what we don't want, and gives us all a starting point to rally against him.  The lesser of evils, however, is the one that waters down our message until it doesn't mean anything anymore.  The lesser of evils drains the morale from the grass roots and tells us what we must settle for instead of We the People telling him what he must do.  Romney is the lesser of two evils, whereas for Santorum conservatives Ron Paul is the lesser of two goods but still good, and much closer to conservatism than Romney or Obama.

All in all, the simple fact that you and I are having this deep discussion in a respectful manner makes me incredibly hopeful and optimistic for the political process.  I'll pray for you tonight as you consider these things, brother.

In liberty,

Zach Foster

P.S.  Remember that the only cure for 1984 is 1776.

Killing the Bill of Rights on Its Anniversar​y

Dear Lover of Liberty,

 

Today marks the 220th anniversary of the day the Bill of Rights were officially added to the Constitution.

 

Ironically, the U.S. Senate is set to kill the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments of that Bill of Rights later today.

 

Last night, the U.S. House approved the Conference Report version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which includes provisions that would allow the President to throw American citizens in jail and keep them there indefinitely.

 

The Senate was set to vote on this bill around 4 pm eastern today, so I need your immediate help if we are to stop this dangerous legislation.

 

You can find your senators' contact information here.

 

Please, call them right away and demand they stand up for the Bill of Rights on its 220th anniversary byvoting "No" on the NDAA Conference Report.

 

In Liberty,

 

Matt Hawes

Vice President

Source: C4L

Libertaria​ns say Bill of Rights Day is reminder of need to downsize Big Government

WASHINGTON - Today, December 15, libertarians celebrate Bill of Rights Day.

 

On December 15, 1791 the Bill of Rights was ratified, creating the first Ten Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

 

The Libertarian Party platform expressly supports the Bill of Rights and calls for restoring our freedoms lost as a result of laws passed in violation of the Constitution by Democratic and Republican politicians.

 

The Bill of Rights guarantees important individual freedoms and restrains the powers of the federal government.Among them, our rights to free speech, self-defense and justice. These restraints were later extended to the states with the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

 

Democrats and Republicans regularly violate the Bill of Rights, especially the Tenth Amendment which states that the powers of the federal government are strictly limited to those enumerated in Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution - a short list which stands in stark contrast to the incalculably long list of functions comprised by today's Big Government.

 

Presidents, Senators and Representatives in Congress have long violated the Bill of Rights by continually expanding federal power far beyond what is allowed by the Tenth Amendment and by trampling on due process, privacy protections, free speech and freedom of the press.

 

Let this Bill of Rights Day serve as a reminder to all Americans of the task before us: We must dramatically downsize Big Government to limit the federal government to those powers articulated in Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution and to move as quickly as possible towards the full repeal of every law that violates the Bill of Rights.

 

The Libertarian Party plays a critical role in this task by fielding candidates who, unlike either Democrats or Republicans, genuinely and consistently uphold the Constitution. A vote for a small government Libertarian is a vote to restore the Bill of Rights.

 

For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.

 

The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971.  The Libertarian Party stands for free markets, civil liberties, and peace. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.

 

###

 

P.S.  If you have not already done so, please join the Libertarian Party. We are the only political party dedicated to free markets, civil liberties, and peace. You can also renew your membership. Or, you can make a contribution separate from membership.

Students Fight Back, Swinging Blindly Part 3

By Zach Foster
Continued from Part 2

3.      “Free speech is a right.”

Free speech is indeed a right.  Since free speech and free expression are guaranteed by the First Amendment, this right is also an entitlement.  Students Fight Back claims that “school administrators censor opposition to the status quo of worker and student exploitation, while giving racist and bigoted hate speech a free pass.”  Such a claim immediately raises two questions: (1) What the hell are they talking about? And (2) Can they provide documentation for violation of First Amendments rights concurrent with tolerance of public bigotry?  Unless they provide hard evidence, they are LYING.

Most of the cases where school administrators stop rallies or demonstrations from occurring, it is justified by Heckler’s Veto.  Heckler’s Veto is at best a shaky foundation for curtailing of public demonstrations, especially since it is ridiculous to try predicting a party’s violent behavior in response to another party’s demonstration.  However, Heckler’s Veto can at certain times be justified when it is clear that violence and disorder is an immediate consequence.

If students are simply demonstrating peacefully and using their First Amendment right as a tool to raise awareness about problems and possible solutions, then the use of Heckler’s Veto by school administrators is inappropriate and unconstitutional.  The problem is that the demonstrations in which Students Fight Back members participate in are, if not organized by Marxists, usually vanguarded or agitated by Marxists.  Furthermore, given that student Marxists tend to at least partially subscribe to Leninist ideas, their ideas of demonstrations often go hand-in-hand with uprisings.  Lenin’s record shows he had no qualms with using violence as a means to an end.

Free speech is a right.  Violent uprisings are covered nowhere in the Bill of Rights.  Self-defense is one thing; downright offense is unacceptable and does a tremendous disservice to one’s cause.  Another disservice these students do, not only to the cause, but also to the people they try to appeal to, is their lack of honesty and intentions.

They claim they are fighting for people’s “rights,” including people’s Constitutional rights, but in reality they are fighting for their abstract concept of “social justice.”  Social justice makes no provision for actual justice, but rather seeks to enforce absolute equality among all people in society rather than preserving people’s equal chances and privileges under the law.  Social justice includes redistribution of wealth and a planned economy.  To the poor and the unemployed, this may seem like actual justice.  To the majority who are not unemployed, including the formerly unemployed and the ever shrinking number of small business owners, this is a far cry from justice and akin to outright thievery.  The only difference in this case between the thievery of Wall Street and the thievery of the social justice revolutionaries is that one set of sticky fingers comes from above while one comes from below.

4.       “Students should have a say in running our schools.”

This claim is actually grounded in legitimacy.  The true purpose of a student union and its student body organizations is not to waste time in trivial distractions like planning school dances and sports rallies, but rather to make the concerns, grievances, and suggestions of students known to the faculty, administration, and governing school board.  If the boards of governors of colleges and universities and/or the elected school boards of public schools are ignoring their student unions, then they do a grievous disservice to their main consumers: the students—the reason for their employment.  In this case it is appropriate for the students to organize under the leadership of well-informed cool heads and explore methods of civil disobedience until their rights are honored and they are given a voice that is heard.

However, students must never forget that they are not businessmen.  What many people forget is, though the purpose of all schools public and private is to educate and award degrees to those who have earned them, schools are businesses and if they are not run for profit, they must at least earn back their operating cost.  Many students want to implement “free this” and “free that” for everyone while having little understanding of the costs, the benefits, and more importantly the consequences.  There is a reason why schools are run by elected boards and not by hot-headed nineteen and twenty year olds.

Continued in Part 4: Apparently the university system encourages homophobic bigotry…

In the mean time, Are College Boards of Governors Qualified?

Qadafi Is Ready For a Truce… NOT!

By Zach Foster

Breaking news from last night: the President of South Africa and Libyan despot-in-chief Muammar Qadafi have announced in a joint press conference that the great leader of the Libyan Socialist People’s Republic (the abbreviated name of the republic) is ready for a truce to bring an end to the civil war that has killed thousands (most of them unarmed civilian casualties inflicted by his loyalists).

South African President Jacob Zuma arrived in Tripoli to meet with Qadafi, and emerged from this meeting trying to assure the international community that the Libyan head of state—still unrepentant about slaughtering thousands of his own people for such insolence as speaking their minds—is “ready to implement the road map” [to peace].  According to an MSNBC report that was published to the web last night, “Zuma said Gadhafi insists that ‘all Libyans be given a chance to talk among themselves’ to determine the country's future.  He did not say Gadhafi is ready to step down, which is the central demand of the rebels.”

The same report said “In April... Gadhafi said he would accept the truce but quickly ignored it and resumed his attacks, while the rebels rejected the cease-fire out of hand because it did not include Gadhafi's exit from power. Since then many cease-fire efforts have failed for similar reasons.”

The rebel government and rebel forces are not at fault for the lack of a truce in Libya.  They have made it clear that they want Qadafi to step down.  They will most likely allow him to live in exile abroad without bringing him back to be tried for crimes against humanity, as long as it brings an end to the war.  Furthermore, every time Qadafi has announced ceasefires on his own, without attempting to reach the rebel leadership, he has promptly violated them, simply having lied in order to buy time to rearm, regroup, and move men and supplies in his fight to hold onto power.

The author never thought he’d write this, but Qadafi’s aggressive violations of ceasefires make the North Vietnamese look like rookies and pacifists.  Not only has Qadafi denied his citizens their most basic human rights, but he has delivered one lie after another to his people and the world.  Such lies include: 1) February, when he claimed that he was not the one ordering troops, police, and mercenaries to fire on the civilians, since he is only a figurehead leader; 2) February, when he said the riots that were turning into gun battles were being provoked by Al Qaeda; 3) March, when he threatened to join Al Qaeda if NATO got involved in the new civil war; 4) when he claimed that rebel forces were slaughtering civilians, not his loyalist troops.  The list goes on.

The rebel forces must continue to fight on.  Even though the initial NATO intervention was a necessary evil, simply for the sake of keeping the rebellion from being erased from existence by Qadafi’s loyalists, neither the U.S., the U.K., nor NATO can continue to hold the rebellion’s hand from a distance.  NATO either needs to get involved and commit combat troops, the way the United Nations intervened on behalf of South Korea in 1950, or NATO needs to allow the rebels to fight it out on their own.  It is one thing to make an advisory commitment by sending a handful of Special Forces troops to train their allies—the rebel forces, governed by the Interim National Council—but making this halfway no-fly-zone commitment that seems to have no end can only rob the rebel government of its sovereignty.

Furthermore, the rebel government needs to provide stability and rule of law in the areas it controls.  This means swearing the local police in allegiance to the new government, having the local police patrol peaceful areas while rebel soldiers patrol hazardous areas, and letting the citizenry rebuild their infrastructure and resume life as usual.  Furthermore, the old Constitution—dissolved by the “great leader” himself after the 1969 coup—needs to be re-evaluated and adapted to modern situations, and a new Constitution and Bill of Rights need to be brought into existence and enforced.  The current law of the land in Libya is the Green Book, Qadafi’s attempt at imitating Mao’s Little Red Book by drafting a pocket-sized guide that dictates public policy based on Arab nationalist socialism and his own personality cult.  This obviously no longer applies to the rebel-controlled areas.

The rebel government will be best off if it models its Constitution and Bill of Rights after the American counterparts.  Whatever the new law of the land will be in rebel territory, it must be all-inclusive, protective of civil rights and individual rights, and it must be put into effect quickly so that Libyans in territory held by Qadafi loyalists can draw hope from the freedom and prosperity the rebels have erected in spite of tyranny and death.

Government officials afraid of a full-body scan of their words should resign, says LP Chair

WASHINGTON - While Democratic and Republican politicians outdo each other with calls for the prosecution and even execution of Bradley Manning and Julian Assange for providing information to various news media, Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle says that free speech and freedom of the press must be supported unconditionally. Hinkle released the following statement today:

"In 1787, as the U.S. Constitution was being written, Thomas Jefferson wrote, 'Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.' His recognition of the critical need for a free press led him and others to demand a Bill of Rights, where freedom of speech and freedom of the press were listed in the very first amendment to the Constitution.

"In 2010, Democratic and Republican politicians alike are trying to destroy this precious liberty. The Obama Administration, which has already invoked the 'state secrets' claim in court more than any administration in history, has arrested Army Private Bradley Manning, alleging that he copied and leaked various documents, and is holding him in solitary confinement pending a military trial. Meanwhile, Republican presidential hopefuls are falling over themselves seeing who can sound the toughest. Mike Huckabee says that anything less than execution of the leaker is too kind. Newt Gingrich wants Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, declared an 'enemy combatant' so that he can be denied all due process. And Sarah Palin wants Assange hunted down like Osama bin Laden (perhaps missing the irony that bin Laden has not been caught).

"Even more ominously, companies which provided various services to WikiLeaks suddenly decided to end their relationship after receiving pressure from Washington. Amazon, PayPal, Visa, and MasterCard all suddenly felt that the activities of WikiLeaks, well-known to them for years, were illegal, absent any actual charges being filed for the violation of any law. When government officials start pressuring businesses in order to silence critics, tyranny isn't far off.

"Publishing documents provided by a government agent is not a crime. Embarrassing public officials is not a crime. Regardless of the degree to which the released documents are helpful or harmful, Assange and WikiLeaks are exercising their rights, and American politicians and government agents should stop threatening and harassing them.

"Freedom of the press is not a luxury, and the prospect of a government able to silence dissent and prevent the press from communicating unfavorable information about the behavior of government employees should frighten anyone who loves liberty. It is understandable that government officials who are lying to the public and covering up misdeeds want to keep their actions secret, just as a criminal doesn't want the police to find out about his crime. As Steven Greenhut of the Pacific Research Institute notes, 'If it weren't for anonymous sources and leaked information, the journalism business would serve as a press-release service for officialdom.'

"Private Manning deserves the presumption of innocence, due process, a speedy and fair trial, and decent treatment while in prison. If Manning revealed information which did not damage national security or result in harm to others, but instead revealed evidence of incompetence, corruption, or other illegal activities, then he should be able to raise that as a defense at any trial. Just as when Daniel Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers in 1971 and had his subsequent prosecution dismissed by the courts, an important principle is that information which is being kept secret to protect wrongdoing is not in fact legally and properly classified. A jury should be able to judge both the facts and the law, and to acquit Manning if the jury finds his actions to be justified.

"Two years ago, candidate Barack Obama praised the long tradition of information leaks by defending those who revealed Bush-era covert actions. 'We only know these crimes took place because insiders blew the whistle at great personal risk.... Government whistle-blowers are part of a healthy democracy and must be protected from reprisal.' Obama appears to have forgotten this statement, just as he has forgotten many other statements and promises he made while campaigning.

"Only a month ago, we were told by the Transportation Safety Administration that they should have the power to strip or grope us if we want to exercise our right of travel. In my view, any government official too embarrassed to handle a full-body scan of their words and actions should resign."

The Libertarian Party platform includes the following:

1.1 Expression and Communication. We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology.

1.5 Crime and Justice. Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to them selves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.

The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets, civil liberties, and peace. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.

P.S. If you have not already done so, please join the Libertarian Party. We are the only political party dedicated to free markets and civil liberties. You can also renew your membership. Or, you can make a contribution separate from membership.
Source: Libertarian Party

The Bill of Rights and Current Events – December 2010

By Zach Foster

USA.gov recently published a brief list reminding Americans of what freedoms they are guaranteed under the Bill of Rights of the Constitution.  These freedoms are the cornerstone of American democracy and what it means to be an American citizen.  Nonetheless, these freedoms have been attacked or compromised through the ages and they continue to be attacked today.  Let us analyze some of the freedoms guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights and how they stand in the face of today’s events.

Freedom of Religion: For the most part, American freedom of religion has persevered to unimaginable heights as nearly every denomination of every religion on earth is practiced in this country, from ancient traditional religions like Christianity and Buddhism to modern religions like Wicca and Scientology.  Religious diversity has brought the unexpected but direly needed side effect of teaching Americans to tolerate each other’s differences.  However, the religious group targeted in this country by much of the media for the last nine years, Muslims, has seen attacks on their freedom of religion.  No one is blind to the fact that since September 11^th, 2001 there has been a wave of anti-Muslim sentiment.  Many wonderful and good natured Americans have allowed the better angels of their nature to be corrupted by the propaganda of a few paranoid religious xenophobes.  It is highly unpopular to be a Muslim in America.

What is even more highly unpopular is to be a Muslim in New York City.  Many big names in media launched one verbal assault after another at the idea of building a new mosque several blocks away from Ground Zero.  While it is easy to connect the dots that make this idea seem tacky, the people who have assaulted this idea have bought entirely too deeply into an alleged conspiracy that this is nothing but a slap in the face to America by Muslim extremists.  These people forget, however, that over three hundred of the victims—ten percent of the victims of the attack—were American Muslims.  They also forget about the thousands of good-natured Muslims who died fighting the Taliban between 1996 and 2001, and the patriotic pro-freedom Muslims of the Afghan National Army and the Iraqi Army who have fought and died next to American troops in the fight against extremism.

More importantly, they forget about the American Muslims who have fought and died in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, whose memory is being slapped in the face every time an American utters anti-Islam rhetoric.  Americans forget that we are engaged in a Global War on Terror, NOT a global War on Islam (and let it be noted that former President George W. Bush’s family is very close friends with the  Saudi Royal family).  For all those who still believe that building that mosque in New York is a tacky and intentionally insulting move: is it too difficult to accept that the congregation wants to build their mosque there BECAUSE THEY ALREADY OWN THAT LAND?  Respect religions, condemn violence!

Freedom of assembly:  This freedom is still intact, though it is occasionally abused as Americans forget that this freedom explicitly applies to peaceful assembly.  There are places and times when far-rightist radical groups assemble in order to voice beliefs on racial supremacy and sometimes on how genocide of the lesser races would be a blessing.  Hate dominates their lives and probably always will.  On the other side of the political spectrum, radical leftists gather not just to protest actions of the American government, but advocate for its violent overthrow either for anarchy or for the purpose of proletarian revolution.  They forget that anarchy equals chaos, since social contracts are necessary for society to even function at the bare minimum.  They also forget or consciously disregard historical trends that when governments are violently overthrown by “proletarian revolutions,” the resulting “people’s governments” become more tyrannical and bloody than the ones they replace.  They fail to appreciate the government that, despite its shortcomings, allows them the luxuries of freedom they enjoy daily.

Freedom to keep and bear arms:  This Constitutional right is attacked on a regular basis.  Some states have passed laws overwhelmingly in favor of gun rights, while other state governments do everything in their power to try to remove guns from existence.  While some uneducated idealists truly believe that fewer guns in society will lower gun violence, the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of gun violence is committed not with guns legally purchased from gun stores, but with illegal weapons, usually smuggled into the country and purchased on the black market.  Disarming the law abiding citizenry only makes them vulnerable to be preyed on by criminals.  The Second Amendment was most recently slammed by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, who claimed that James Madison only hastily threw it into the Bill of Rights to get the Constitution ratified by paranoid Congressmen.  However, James Madison’s explicitly pro-gun essay, #46 in The Federalist Papers, proves Breyer to be quite mistaken.

Freedom of speech:  This fundamental right continues to stand strong.  It is often used to voice hate and hateful vulgarity, but these are necessary evils in order to preserve Freedom of Speech for the moment when it is used to cry out a truth and right any grievous wrongs in our country or our world.

Freedom of the press:  This freedom stands strong and often is heavily abused by members of the press.  The press and media have the right to run any story they choose, but they DO NOT have the right to violate government secrecy when it comes to classified documents.  There comes a point where there must be—not a trade-off—but a compromise between freedom of information and national security.  Wikileaks and its American supporters have greatly strained this right in testing the limits of Freedom of the Press.

It was Benjamin Franklin who said it best: “Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.”  If Americans completely give up their Freedom of Speech of Freedom of the Press in the name of national security truly deserve neither.  At the same time, those who would betray vital military or national secrets that would truly harm the security of the nation do not deserve to be free.  There needs to be a boundary for Americans—let each decide their own—where they decide when they are still free to say what they will while national security is respected.  Think of it this way: Will spilling these secrets get people killed?  Will keeping these secrets get people killed?

Freedom for those accused of crimes:  This freedom stands strong to this very day.  It was Cambodian (“Democratic” Kampuchean) dictator Pol Pot who said “It is better that ten innocents should die than for one guilty person to go free.”  In America it is just the opposite, and while crooks are occasionally able to slide past the justice system, many innocent people have been spared from being wrongly sent to prison.  We as a society are above Napoleonic law.  As a matter of fact, it is convicted felons that benefit most from this.  Most Americans misinterpret “protection for the accused” to carry over for those in prison when it need not be so.

There are many convicts in prison who actively fail to be reformed because of participation in rackets and crime from within prison walls.  Many activists rally in favor of improving (softening) living conditions in the prisons, and even for abolishing the death penalty, but they forget two things: 1) Imprisonment and execution are in compliance with Constitutional law, since people can only not be deprived of life, liberty, or property WITHOUT due process of law.  The Justice system is due process of law and CAN deprive a convicted felon of life (the death penalty), liberty (prison time), or property (fines or civil penalties); 2) Prison is meant to be a period of punishment and reform, NOT a child’s time out in his bedroom.

Instead of reading novels, pumping iron, and laying in their cells all day, perhaps prisoners should be doing twelve to fourteen hours of hard labor, followed by one or two hours in education on American history, American government, and the importance of contributing to the community and society as a whole upon release from prison (or, for the lifers without parole, helping others who will be our reform themselves).  While it is important that we protect those accused of crimes, we also have an obligation to teach and reform those in prison so that when they get out, we can also protect potential victims of crime.

Freedom of religion is the face of diversity.  Freedom of assembly is the face of political ideas.  Freedom to keep and bear arms is the face of self defense.  Freedom of speech is the face of expression, and sometimes, truth.  Freedom of the press is the face of knowing what goes on around us so that we may be one society, not an archipelago of people and information, and it is the face of awareness.  Protection for those accused of crimes, as well as legal disciplinary action for those convicted, are key aspects of a social contract and are the face of order.  All of these faces are the grand union that makes up this country.  The Constitution is the Law of the Land, and let us fulfill our dual responsibility of being aware of our rights and defending them at all costs.

What freedoms are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights?

When the Constitution was ratified in 1789, many people were concerned that it did not protect certain freedoms. They thought that the Constitution should be changed or amended to protect these freedoms. On December 15, 1791, 10 amendments were added to the Constitution. These amendments guarantee certain freedoms and rights, so they are known as the Bill of Rights.

Some of the freedoms and rights protected in the Bill of Rights include:

•Freedom of religion

•Freedom of assembly

•To keep and bear arms

•Freedom of speech

•Freedom of the press

•Protection for those accused of crimes

The original paper copy of the Bill of Rights is currently kept and may be viewed at the National Archives Building in Washington, D.C.

The Bill of Rights Day is celebrated every December 15.