Media information, sports, politics, movies, music, news, finance, history, science, space, technology, health and medicine, auto's, fashion, electronics, beauty, video games etc...
Showing posts with label Right to Travel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Right to Travel. Show all posts
The government has a problem with your new, high-mileage, low-pollution car: you aren’t paying enough in gas taxes to keep up the federal highway system. Recently, at Congress’s behest, the Congressional Budget Office studied another way to raise money; charge drivers per mile driven, rather than (or in addition to) taxing your gas. The Vehicle Mileage Tax (VMT) is meant to directly reflect some of the costs of maintaining the highways that are not a direct consequence of the gas you burn.
The technology to track where you drive and how far is now available, as well, combining things like the E-ZPass with GPS and wireless networking. The VMT is not suggested just as a way to bring in revenue, though. It is also envisioned as a way to shape human behavior. How would it work? There are a couple of implementation possibilities. The government could mandate new cars be fit with some sort of tracking and reporting device. This means it would take 15-20 years before all vehicles are outfitted. Or it could require all drivers to have their current car retrofitted with such a device, which would be a large one-time expense. These devices could serve multiple purposes, though; they could also be used to buy insurance-by-the-mile, or deliver real-time traffic information to the driver.
How real is the potential for this “user fee”, the government supplemented the Highway Trust Fund to the tune of $30 billion from 2008 to 2010. It could end up as a state-level program. Read up on state and federal laws and statues. Power Your Mind! MadOne/ Forbes
While the establishment constantly invokes the contrived terror threat as justification for the announcement that your every activity is being sent to federal fusion centers, those same fusion centers have been busy defining peaceful assembly, non-violent protest and criticism of the government as domestic terrorism. According to the government’s own definition of what constitutes terrorist activity – you are a terrorist.
By encouraging Americans to “report suspicious activity” that includes such behavior, the feds are knowingly on a mission to chill political dissent, by making people afraid to exercise their constitutional rights in the fear that their neighbors will turn them in to the authorities unless they rigidly control their behavior and don’t risk even patently benign activities being misconstrued. The following is a list of behaviors, actions or interests that the federal government, via centralized threat fusion centers that collate such information, considers to be potential signs of terrorism under the MIAC Report.
- Displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties - Supporting Congressman Ron Paul - Supporting former presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin - Supporting former Congressman Bob Barr - Opposing the implementation of a North American Union - Owning gold bullion - Displaying historical U.S. flags - Opposing abortion - Talking about the documentary Zeitgeist
According to an earlier document issued by the Joint Terrorism Task Force, the following behaviors, actions or interests are also signs of terrorism.
- Being interested in animal rights - Being a “lone individual” - Making numerous references to the U.S. Constitution - Defending the U.S. Constitution - Claiming driving is a right, not a privilege - Refusing to identify yourself to an authority figure - Attempting to monitor the actions of police - Being bald
Learn more about your rights and the government. Power your Mind!MadOne
Government responds to the backlash against the unconstitutional fourth amendment violating TSA screening measures by blacklisting air travelers who object to the over reaching intrusive searches at the airports. They are trying to send a chilling effect not to protest the TSA groping and body scanners that has the public in an uproar. Will they add them to a list were you can not buy a new car .apply for employment or do business.Will people be put on this list that will make life hard to function because the government has blackballed people who objected to the abusive TSA.These secretive list shows the abusive executive branch bypassing the courts and due process blacklisting their political enemies and opposition. We must not allow this to chill us from standing up for our rights. Power Your Mind MadOne
Blogger Matt Kernan was able to bypass both the naked body scanner and invasive TSA pat down procedures during his return to the United States this past weekend, proving that both measures are completely unconstitutional and creating a precedent for a total shake-up of airport security.
Kernan, who had no connecting flight and time to kill, decided to take a stand. So begins Kernan’s description of his 2 and a half hour debate with TSA officials and airport police after he refused to go through the naked scanner or be groped.After TSA workers laughed at Kernan for opting out of the radiation scanner, he politely informed them that if they touched his genitals he would consider it an assault.With TSA officials repeating “policy” like a broken record, Kernan stated, “I am aware that it is policy, but I disagree with the policy, and I think that it is unconstitutional. As a U.S. citizen, I have the right to move freely within my country as long as I can demonstrate proof of citizenship and have demonstrated no reasonable cause to be detained.” Look up ( Right to Travel and 4th Amendment )
Soon after the TSA Supervisor, a Delta Airlines manager and the airport police were called and Kernan informed them that he was recording the audio of the exchange on his iPhone. “I will not do anything that is not explicitly stated on recording as mandatory,” Kernan told them, as the police suggested they conduct the pat down instead of the TSA. However, the cops were forced to back down when they refused to state on record that Kernan would have to have his genitals touched in order to be free to go.
After a disagreement between the police and the TSA about who had jurisdiction to arrest Kernan, the police began to get frustrated with the TSA Supervisor for pawning off the responsibility on them. At this point, the Supervisor tried to involve the “Federal Security Director,” who was told that Kernan was being polite and citing his constitutional rights. After more deliberation, Kernan was eventually escorted out of the airport without having to go through a naked body scanner or have his genitals groped. Infowars.com Learn more about your rights. Power your Mind. MadOne
The former governor of Minnesota and host of the popular TruTV show, Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura, announced he will no longer use commercial airlines due to the egregious abuses of the TSA and the government.
Ventura said he made the decision to avoid public aircraft after he found himself becoming too comfortable with being routinely searched. He said he was subjected to pat down and search three or four times a week when he traveled for his television show. Ventura had hip surgery and the metal in his body invariably sets off airport metal detectors. Jesse said he will no longer be forced by the TSA to prove he is not a criminal or terrorist. He refuses to be considered guilty until proven innocent by the government in violation of the Fourth Amendment. He also admitted the decision not to fly may put an end to his career.
After the Department of Homeland Security announced the TSA will conduct “enhanced” pat downs of people opting out of naked body scanners following the toner non-bombing fiasco earlier in the month, the Drudge Report teamed up with Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com to cover exploding public resistance to the new effort by the government to normalize the populace to ever-increasing police state tactics under the rubric of staged and false flag terrorism. Learn more about the laws and constitution. Power your mind. MadOne
Friday, October 1, 2010
Right to Travel
DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS,
HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS
HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS
For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:
CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.
CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government -- in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question -- is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to travel.
Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it is unlawful. The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws. The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions -- such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few -- on a citizen's constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?
For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue. In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly:
"The state cannot diminish rights of the people."
And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60,
"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."
Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point -- that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even more straight forward:
"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.
Below is Charlie Sprinkle Who did not have a drivers license and fought the state of California on the Right to Travel.
Freedom of movement, mobility rights or the right to travel is a human rights concept that the constitutions of numerous states respect. It asserts that a citizen of a state, in which that citizen is present has the liberty to travel, reside in, and/or work in any part of the state where one pleases within the limits of respect for the liberty and rights of others, and to leave that state and return at any time. Some immigrants' rights advocates assert that human beings have a fundamental human right to mobility not only within a state but between states.
