Spokane and the Tenth Amendment

Local citizens challenge published opinions regarding the 10th Amendment:

** ** **

The 10th Amendment reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Rep. Matt Shea knows the constitution. The Founding Fathers knew one or two things about a federal government and a constitution: a federal government will, if not carefully circumscribed, tend to pull all powers unto itself. In order to limit that tendency James Madison and others put forth a federal government of very limited and specifically enumerated powers. That wasn’t enough for the citizens. They demanded a Bill of Rights. The citizens understood that a government that could do anything must do everything. Unfettered democracy lends itself to expansion and abuse at the expense of liberty. On of those guarantees was the 10th Amendment. Reinvigorating the 10th Amendment isn’t “a waste of time and effort.” It’s a return to common sense. A return to federalism. Matt Shea knows the constitution and understands government. The Spokesman Review believes that the courts that have gutted the 10th Amendment are the proper venue to re-invigorate the 10th Amendment. I think attorney Matt Shea has the better understanding in this case.

Dave Stevens

Mr. Stevens is a Candidate for County Prosecutor

*

*

Freedom cannot withstand a hierarchical form of government where one person or group gets the final say on everything; thus, the founders created a system of distributed power such that every official took an oath to the Constitution, not the men in black robes.

The Constitution was written in plain English, and only through mental gyrations and corrupted case law can the current generation of attorneys and judges claim that one plus one is not two, but really three. Under your argument (editorial, Jan. 26), if the Supreme Court said, “one plus one equals three,” we would all have to accept it, even though they are just political appointees of the institution they are supposed to keep in check. The founders never contemplated judicial review, a power the Marshall court gave itself. Since then, juries, law enforcement offices and elected officials have given false deference to unaccountable officials with lifetime appointments and have allowed one plus one equals three to go unchallenged.

It is time for oath keepers to tell corrupted federal officials, “You made your decision; we will not enforce it.” Remember, the main writer of the Constitution, James Madison, advocated this process of nullification Rep. Matt Shea is proposing.

Chris Bass

Liberty Lake

*

*

Your Jan. 26 editorial claims that Rep. Matt Shea’s sovereignty bills are a waste of time. Really?

We elect our representatives to do the people’s business, like passing legislation and budgets. But they’re also elected to watch out for our best interests, which could include “erecting sudden barriers” against a federal government that permeates all areas of our lives.

You state, “it’s wrongheaded to pursue” limiting federal power through state legislatures. Why?

Didn’t the states create the federal government in the first place? Since only the states were party to the compact, are they not the final arbiters on the limits of the central government’s power? Was that authority not explicit in the 10th Amendment?

Does this amendment not imply that a state has the right to nullify any federal law that it deems unconstitutional?

The federal government, ordained and established by “We the People,” was deliberately created with horizontal checks and balances between the legislative, executive and judicial branches. There are also vertical ones between the federal government, the states and the citizenry, established by our Constitution’s 10th Amendment. As a result, the states are obligated to stand between its people and the federal government to resist unconstitutional acts.

John F. Christina
Spokane

*

*

The state sovereignty bills introduced by Rep. Matt Shea are long overdue and sorely needed to help rein in an out-of-control national government.

Your editorial (Jan. 26) talks about the painful budget cuts of 2009, yet the state general fund expenditures are budgeted to be $40 million higher for 2009-11 than the 2007-09 budget. Only people who support the ever-expanding, cradle-to-grave welfare state would consider this slowdown in the rate of growth of spending to be a painful cut. An actual 10 percent cut in the budget accompanied with a real 10 percent reduction in the sales tax and property tax would be a welcome relief.

No, Matt Shea is not wasting time. He is simply trying to stop the state and national government from wasting the time and hard-earned tax dollars of his constituents.

Steve Dunham
Spokane

*

*

Well, how does the Spokesman Reviews editorial reporter become an expert on the Constitution? Representative Shea is a Constitutionally trained attorney so do you think he might just know a little more about this than a newspaper reporter does?

This articles’ opinion and several of the posts here are simply proof of the problem. Our state and all states in the union are sovereign. The attitude that we blindly serve the federal government has been wrongly placed in peoples minds over the years. There is a federal constitution and there is a state constitution.

Quick lesson-The Federal Constitution asserts our God given rights (the 2nd Amendment was smartly placed there to insure protection of the other nine). The 10th Amendment means basically that if you think we forgot something, we didn’t.

As Thomas Jefferson said,  In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

Tim Carson, president
Spokane Valley Republican Action Club

*

*

I’m far away from being a US Constitutional expert, but I think the problem of lost state’s power is a result of the 17th Amendment:

Art 1.3.1. of the US Constitution gave each state legislature the power to choose itsrepresentatives to the US Senate~

The 17th Amendment moved that power to the people and created a second House of Representatives~

And killed our Republic in the process~

From: A decentralist

## ## ##

## ## ##

densa will meet at the S.S. Beryl on Wednesday, February, 10th.    The following Wednesday, dENSA is sending a delegation to the Jeff Dunham Show at The Spokane Arena.  (12 confirmed with two tickets remaining)

10th Amendment

“To mollify Alexander Hamilton’s and James Madison’s fears about how a Bill of Rights might be used as a pretext to infringe on human rights, the Ninth Amendment was added that reads: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” In essence, the Ninth Amendment says it’s impossible to list all of our God-given or natural rights. Just because a right is not listed doesn’t mean it can be infringed upon or disparaged by the U.S. Congress. The Tenth Amendment is a reinforcement of the Ninth saying, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” That means if a power is not delegated to Congress, it belongs to the states of the people.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments mean absolutely nothing today as Americans have developed a level of naive trust for Congress, the White House and the U.S. Supreme Court that would have astonished the founders, a trust that will lead to our undoing as a great nation.”

~ Walter E. Williams

*

*

Comments from State Representative Matt Shea,  Spokane Valley-Position 2, 4th District:

*

*

“In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate – look to his character….” ~ Noah Webster, Letters to a Young Gentleman Commencing His Education, 1789

*

*

*

The following review of last week’s dENSA location was submitted by J.K.

The Chinese restaurant was great for me, it was like stepping back in time 25 years…the smoke eater still hung from the ceiling in an act of denial/reverence to a time when the West was just a little bit wilder.  Hang in there Szechuan Restaurant…you never know…a repeal may be just around the corner and you can plug that, “MUTHA” back in!

Ratings:

FOOD:   B-

PRICES:  A-

SERVICE & HOSPITALITY:  B+

CLEANLINESS:  C

THE DRINKS WERE JUST LIKE C.S. LIKES HIS MEN…….STIFF AND CHEAP.

*

*

dENSA will return to Northern Quest on February 3rd, as there is some interest in a WSU football letter of intent signing to be held there that evening.

True Patriots

** ** **

“For true patriots to be silent, is dangerous.” ~ Samuel Adams, 1766

** ** **

** ** **

** ** **

*

*

*

*

From the editorial Pages of the Wall Street Journal January 22,  2010:

Newsflash: First Amendment Upheld
An end to giving political speech less protection than pornography.

By BRADLEY A. SMITH

Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in which the Court struck down a blanket government prohibition on corporate political speech, is a wonderful decision that restores political speech to the primacy it was intended to have under the First Amendment.

To truly appreciate the stakes in Citizens United, one must remember the government’s legal position in the case. Implicit in its briefs but laid bare at oral argument, the government maintained that the Constitution allows the government to ban distribution of books over Amazon’s Kindle; to prohibit a union from hiring a writer to author a book titled, “Why Working Americans Should Support the Obama Agenda”; and to prohibit Simon & Schuster from publishing, or Barnes & Noble from selling, a book containing even one line of advocacy for or against a candidate for public office. As David Barry would say, “I am not making this up.”

The Court said “no,” and the only shocking thing about the decision is that the four liberal justices said “yes.”

Hopefully, this ruling marks an end to 20 years of jurisprudence in which the Court has provided less protection to core political speech than it has to Internet pornography, the transmission of stolen information, flag burning, commercial advertising, topless dancing, and burning a cross outside an African-American church.

Unfortunately, some in Congress are using this decision to push for a government takeover of political campaigns through the misnamed “Fair Elections Now Act,” which has over 100 sponsors (all but three of them Democrats) in the House. This legislation would use tax dollars to fund congressional campaigns.

This “solution” to the alleged problem of moneyed interests dominating our politics, apart from other objections, is simply irrelevant to the issue at hand. Corporations will still be able to make independent expenditures, regardless of how the candidates fund their campaigns. Still others professing outrage at Citizens United, such as Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.), talk of using securities regulation to hamstring corporations that dare to speak. Mr. Frank is pledging to hold hearings.

It is true that the Supreme Court’s ruling will lead to more corporate (and union) political speech. But even if one thinks that is a bad thing, there is little empirical reason to believe the horror stories of corporate dominance of the democratic process.

Already, 28 states representing 60% of the nation’s population allow corporate independent expenditures in state races. These states, including Virginia, Utah and Oregon, are hardly mismanaged. Rather, they are disproportionately among the fastest growing, best governed states in the country.

The dissenting justices in Citizens United see corporations as organizations in which people are trapped. They bemoan the allegedly lost rights of shareholders who may not personally support the candidates a corporation might choose to support. The justices who joined Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion, on the other hand, regard this as no different than any other question of corporate governance.

Corporations frequently take action that some shareholders do not like, including, for example, making charitable contributions. Stockholders are free to leave the corporation if their disagreements become too strong. Meanwhile, why should the majority be prohibited from voicing their views as a corporate enterprise?

Much of the opposition to Citizens United is simply the opposition of the political left to what they perceive corporations will say. Consider campaign finance “reform” organizations that have long been supported by corporations. New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice has received support, for example, from a rogue’s gallery of corporate America, including Enron and Bear Stearns. Never has the public heard a peep from this organization about whether all shareholders in these corporations actually support the center’s agenda.

Or, for that matter, consider John McCain’s Reform Institute, founded to promote campaign finance reform after his 2000 presidential run. It has received funding from AIG. Did all AIG’s shareholders approve?

Similarly, much of the criticism focuses on the perception that Republicans will be the winners if corporations and unions are unshackled. President Barack Obama, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Bob Menendez all announced that they would be looking for ways to limit corporate expenditures.

But the First Amendment is all about distrusting government to make those decisions about who has spoken too much. That’s why Thursday’s decision is such a breath of fresh air.

The next time you download a book on Kindle, buy a Michael Moore screed at Barnes & Noble, or order up a political movie from video on demand, remember that it is the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United that guarantees you the right to do so.

Mr. Smith is professor of law at Capital University Law School and chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics. He served as a commissioner of the Federal Election Commission from 2000-2005.

http://online.wsj.com/home-page

*

*

The dENSA site selection committee returned a rather cryptic recommendation for next Wednesday’s meeting:

A Chinese Restaurant near or next to K-mart on Division Street.  No name or address provided, but apparently use of the rear entrance is no longer required.

Animal House

*

*

Big Dog:

The four-year-old blue great dane,  weighs a staggering 245lbs, 112 kilos, and measures almost 43ins, (1+ meter)  at the shoulder

*

*

BIG CAT:

*

*

Pug Security System, every home should have one:

*

*

This is such a tragedy to see what they have done to our country’s wildlife!   The photo below captures a disturbing trend that  is beginning to affect US wildlife…

Animals that were formerly self-sufficient are now showing signs of belonging to the Democrat Party… as they have apparently learned to just sit and wait for the government to step in and provide everything.  This photo is of a Democrat black bear in Montana nicknamed . . .Bearaaack.

*

*

Politics as usual?

*

*

Spokane City Zoo, visiting hours Monday 6:00 pm to 10:00pm

*

*

A consultant arrives to help the citizens of  Spokane

*

*

No bid Contractor:

*

*

City Council is in Session:

*

*

River Front Park to go:

*

*

Citizen input matters:

*

*

City Council Business:

*

*

You should be happy such actions will be good for the city in the long run!

*

*

You have three minutes to comment, please do not make any relevant remarks, or you may be escorted from the council chambers:

*

*

“Educate and inform the whole mass of the people… They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

*

*

dENSA will meet at Northern Quest Casino on January 20th.

Step Up Spokane

*

*

*

dENSA Predictions:

1. Number of on-side kicks in Wild-Card games

*

2. Total number of yards for a loss in play-offs

(excludes Wild-Card games and Superbowl)

*

3. Total number of sacks in the Superbowl

In a free country we could each throw in $3.00 and the winners would end up being responsible for some beer; however, that could be viewed as gambling and the government might require…

*

This is not be a betting or wagering pool

*  * *

This is not gambling

* * *

This will be a measurement of dENSA ability to predict future events relative to motivation:

Question number 1.  Winner will owe all participants $1.00

Question number 2. Winner receives nothing (state approved betting)

Question number 3.  Winner receives $2.00 times number of participants

*

Any costs associated with this experiment is a donation to the study of science  and phenomena.

*

Maximum number of experiment participants: 500,00

*

Next measurements:

1.  Optimal level of federal research funding required to produce the optimal level of federal funding.

2. Number of  City of Spokane consultants in 2010.

3.  Size of Tea Party Crowd in Spokane, WA on April 15th.

*

*

dENSA will meet at Wiese’s  Place on Wednesday, January 13th

Our History

*

*

*

“The relationship between Washington and Hamilton was so consequential in early American history – rivaled only by the intense comradeship between Jefferson and Madison – that it is difficult to conceive their careers apart.  The two men had complementary talents, values and opinions that survived many strains over their twenty-two years together.  Washington possessed the outstanding judgment, sterling character and clear sense of purpose needed to guide his sometimes wayward protege; he saw that the volatile Hamilton needed a steadying hand.  Hamilton, in turn, contributed philosophical depth, administrative expertise, and comprehensive policy knowledge that nobody in Washington’s ambit ever matched. He could transmute wispy ideas into detailed plans and turn revolutionary dreams into enduring realities.  As a team, they were unbeatable and far more than the some of their parts” ~  Ron Chernow

*

*

“It’s not tyranny we desire; it’s a just, limited, federal government.” ~ Alexander Hamilton

*

“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. ~ George Washington

*

“The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments.” ~ George Washington

*

George Washington in Consultation with Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton by Constantino Brumidi, 1870-73; South wall of Senate Wing

*

dENSA will meet at the Globe, located at Main & Division on Wednesday, January 6th.

Rein in Runaway Government

What odd times we live in. Bad is good. Measured sickness is called universal health care. Surveillance is called security. Oppression is called freedom. We need to stop believing and listening to what the controlled media prints and broadcasts and see what is going on. I doubt what people say; I believe what they do.

With the feds’ heavy-handed insanity coming to a state and town near you, we need to put the reins on this horse. We don’t serve the federal government, the federal government serves us. Washington state (and the other 49) needs to invoke the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and keep what is not constitutional out of our state.

Washington state, a sovereign state, has powers not being used because they most likely have conveniently been forgotten about for federal funding projects and more. We need the government out of our lives so that we can live like the free men and women our forefathers set this up to be. I am sure all the framers of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are rolling in their graves over what isbecoming of our great nation. Refuse to live in tyranny.

~ Tim Carson

*

*

The following was printed in the Wall Street Journal on December 17, 2009:

How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus

By PATRICK J. MICHAELS

Few people understand the real significance of Climategate, the now-famous hacking of emails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU). Most see the contents as demonstrating some arbitrary manipulating of various climate data sources in order to fit preconceived hypotheses (true), or as stonewalling and requesting colleagues to destroy emails to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the face of potential or actual Freedom of Information requests (also true).

But there’s something much, much worse going on—a silencing of climate scientists, akin to filtering what goes in the bible, that will have consequences for public policy, including the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent categorization of carbon dioxide as a “pollutant.”

The bible I’m referring to, of course, is the refereed scientific literature. It’s our canon, and it’s all we have really had to go on in climate science (until the Internet has so rudely interrupted). When scientists make putative compendia of that literature, such as is done by the U.N. climate change panel every six years, the writers assume that the peer-reviewed literature is a true and unbiased sample of the state of climate science.

That can no longer be the case. The alliance of scientists at East Anglia, Penn State and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (in Boulder, Colo.) has done its best to bias it.

A refereed journal, Climate Research, published two particular papers that offended Michael Mann of Penn State and Tom Wigley of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. One of the papers, published in 2003 by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas (of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics), was a meta-analysis of dozens of “paleoclimate” studies that extended back 1,000 years. They concluded that 20th-century temperatures could not confidently be considered to be warmer than those indicated at the beginning of the last millennium.

In fact, that period, known as the “Medieval Warm Period” (MWP), was generally considered warmer than the 20th century in climate textbooks and climate compendia, including those in the 1990s from the IPCC.

Then, in 1999, Mr. Mann published his famous “hockey stick” article in Geophysical Research Letters (GRL), which, through the magic of multivariate statistics and questionable data weighting, wiped out both the Medieval Warm Period and the subsequent “Little Ice Age” (a cold period from the late 16th century to the mid-19th century), leaving only the 20th-century warming as an anomaly of note.

Messrs. Mann and Wigley also didn’t like a paper I published in Climate Research in 2002. It said human activity was warming surface temperatures, and that this was consistent with the mathematical form (but not the size) of projections from computer models. Why? The magnitude of the warming in CRU’s own data was not as great as in the models, so therefore the models merely were a bit enthusiastic about the effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Mr. Mann called upon his colleagues to try and put Climate Research out of business. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal,” he wrote in one of the emails. “We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.”

After Messrs. Jones and Mann threatened a boycott of publications and reviews, half the editorial board of Climate Research resigned. People who didn’t toe Messrs. Wigley, Mann and Jones’s line began to experience increasing difficulty in publishing their results.

This happened to me and to the University of Alabama’s Roy Spencer, who also hypothesized that global warming is likely to be modest. Others surely stopped trying, tiring of summary rejections of good work by editors scared of the mob. Sallie Baliunas, for example, has disappeared from the scientific scene.

GRL is a very popular refereed journal. Mr. Wigley was concerned that one of the editors was “in the skeptics camp.” He emailed Michael Mann to say that “if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official . . . channels to get him ousted.”

Mr. Mann wrote to Mr. Wigley on Nov. 20, 2005 that “It’s one thing to lose ‘Climate Research.’ We can’t afford to lose GRL.” In this context, “losing” obviously means the publication of anything that they did not approve of on global warming.

Soon the suspect editor, Yale’s James Saiers, was gone. Mr. Mann wrote to the CRU’s Phil Jones that “the GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/ new editorial leadership there.”

It didn’t stop there. Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory complained that the Royal Meteorological Society (RMS) was now requiring authors to provide actual copies of the actual data that was used in published papers. He wrote to Phil Jones on March 19, 2009, that “If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available—raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations—I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals.”

Messrs. Jones and Santer were Ph.D. students of Mr. Wigley. Mr. Santer is the same fellow who, in an email to Phil Jones on Oct. 9, 2009, wrote that he was “very tempted” to “beat the crap” out of me at a scientific meeting. He was angry that I published “The Dog Ate Global Warming” in National Review, about CRU’s claim that it had lost primary warming data.

The result of all this is that our refereed literature has been inestimably damaged, and reputations have been trashed. Mr. Wigley repeatedly tells news reporters not to listen to “skeptics” (or even nonskeptics like me), because they didn’t publish enough in the peer-reviewed literature—even as he and his friends sought to make it difficult or impossible to do so.

Ironically, with the release of the Climategate emails, the Climatic Research Unit, Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley have dramatically weakened the case for emissions reductions. The EPA claimed to rely solely upon compendia of the refereed literature such as the IPCC reports, in order to make its finding of endangerment from carbon dioxide. Now that we know that literature was biased by the heavy-handed tactics of the East Anglia mob, the EPA has lost the basis for its finding.

wsj.com

*

*

dENSA meets at the Red Lion Tavern on New Year’s Eve’s Eve.

Post Falls Freedom Festival Notes

Spokane dENSA wishes you a Merry Christmas, and all the best of a new year!

*

The December 10th dENSA post had about 2.5 hours of video broken into 15 segments.  For those interested in specific Freedom Festival content, the following are notes pertaining to three of the speakers/topics:

Video 1/15: Approximately ten minute update on the Continental Congress that took place this past November.

The following was found posted at the CONTINENTAL CONGRESS website:

PURPOSE OF CONTINENTAL CONGRESS

The purpose of Continental Congress 2009 is to determine a legal and peaceful means to stop the violations of The Constitution of The United States of America and to restore Constitutional governance.

THE BROAD AGENDA

Specifically, the delegates will consider:

* The framework, content and meaning of the Constitution as originally intended;

* The provisions provided for The People to hold the government accountable to the Constitution;

* Violations to the Constitution and their devastating impacts on America and her people and resources;

* The Record of Petitions for Redress, (over fourteen years), directed to federal and state government for violations to the Constitution and government’s response;

* The Vision for America if we followed it – what would our Nation/life be like if we were wholly obedient to the Guarantees of the Constitution rather than the whims and assurances of elected officials;

* A template for transition to Constitutional governance in America;

* Peaceful and legal means through which a critical mass of The People can push back and stop the violations and restore Constitutional obedience in America.

*

“The upcoming Continental Congress is being called by The People, not to amend our Constitution, but to defend the one we now have.  This is not a Constitutional Convention.”

The findings of this congress are expected to be presented in a document called the Articles of Freedom; for more information visit the Continental Congress website at: http://www.cc2009.us/

*

*

Videos 2/15 – 5/15: Presentation by Mr. Edwin Berry, an atmospheric physicist discussing some of the fundamentals of, “climate fraud;” which extended to unethical behavior by individuals at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Center for atmospheric Research, and others.  There are ample sources corroborating many of Mr. Berry’s findings on a scientific basis.  The political and governmental findings are an entirely different matter.

*

Videos 6/15 – 15/15: Presentation by Mr.  Michael Shaw detailing how misrepresented science has been used to influence policy and operational decisions within government.  He illustrated the corrosive affects on private property rights as well as waste and abuse within government.  Specific documentation pertaining to Spokane County, Spokane Valley and Northern Idaho jurisdictions was presented.  The City of Spokane and Avista were cited for particularly egregious conduct.

Mr. Shaw appeared to have extensively researched and documented this topic, and displayed a deep understanding of socio-governmental models.

*

*

From Hopenhagen:

*

*

Next dENSA meeting will be a Casey’s on December 23rd.

Climate Science

Freedom Festival II

Thank you Mr. Bass, for your letter to the Spokesman Review regarding Freedom Festival II.

Militia Label Misleading

Your coverage of the Freedom Festivals (“A passion rising,” Dec. 6) was disappointing. You attended the latter event, and had access to video from the first event, yet characterize this as a militia movement. You twice quote Shaeffer Cox, a minor speaker, ignoring the headline speakers. I did not see Michael Shaw’s quote, “This is not a battle that we can win with guns…. If Americans start shooting, we lose.”

When Cox was invited at the last minute, we believed he would speak on the Continental Congress. None of the organizers knew he would mention the word militia.

As constitutional scholar Edwin Viera has stated, private militias are unconstitutional and a large part of the reason the word militia has been tarnished. Just because private militias often applaud freedom-loving patriots like Sheriff Mack does not mean everyone who supports freedom believes in private militias.

The vast majority of 1,200 attendees in November and 800 attendees last Wednesday were not there as part of a militia movement, but in a grassroots effort to restore freedom through abiding by constitutional restrictions on government tyranny. It is curious how Freedom Festivals received no local coverage until a minor speaker used the word militia.

Christopher Bass
Liberty Lake

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*