David Kretzmann » Rights

The Cherokee vs. The Police State

David Kretzmann — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 16:12:28 +0000

In the early 1830s, the Cherokee nation, located in Appalachia, was pressured by the U.S. government to evacuate their land after gold was discovered on their territory. John Marshall’s Supreme Court ruled in 1831 that the Cherokee were not a sovereign nation and could not hold title to the land on which they lived (despite having lived there for many generations). The U.S. government, only in existence for less than fifty years at the time, conveniently ruled that the Cherokee did not have constitutional protections and could not control their own territory any longer. President Andrew Jackson led the charge to remove and displace the Cherokee and their counterpart tribes that called the region their home.

“John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it! Build a fire under them. When it gets hot enough, they’ll go.” ~ Andrew Jackson

Despite the efforts of Cherokee Chief John Ross and other Cherokee members, the Cherokee were forcibly removed from their land in 1838 on what we know today as the Trail of Tears. Thousands of Cherokee individuals were taken from their homes, without even having time to get their possessions, and marched, surrounded by U.S. soldiers, to concentration camps or “stockades” in Tennessee. The Cherokee were held in these stockades for several months, during which many individuals died of cold, starvation, and disease. Those who survived the stockades were then forced by the U.S. government to march to Oklahoma reservations. It’s estimated that up to a third of the 13,000 Cherokee population died in the Tennessee stockades and march to Oklahoma.

John Ross desperately pleaded for his people and their basic human and legal rights. The Cherokee felt the full brunt of the police state in the 1830s: they were swept from their homes, marched to concentration camps, and then forced to walk hundreds of miles to their new “home” courtesy of the U.S. government. Government is forceful by nature, and the Cherokee learned this harsh fact early on in the U.S. government’s existence.

In Washington D.C., John Ross expressed these words to the U.S. government in 1836 in a final effort to resist the U.S. government which was so desperately trying to displace the Cherokee people.

“By the stipulations of this instrument, we are despoiled of our private possessions, the indefeasible property of individuals. We are stripped of every attribute of freedom and eligibility for legal self-defence. Our property may be plundered before our eyes; violence may be committed on our persons; even our lives may be taken away, and there is none to regard our complaints. We are denationalized; we are disfranchised. We are deprived of membership in the human family! We have neither land nor home, nor resting place that can be called our own.” ~ John Ross; September 28, 1836

Share/Bookmark

Ron Paul: The Right to Own Guns

David Kretzmann — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 02:19:22 +0000

“I share our Founders’ belief that in a free society each citizen must have the right to bear arms.” ~ Ron Paul

Share/Bookmark

Ron Paul: How Much Freedom Do We Have Left?

David Kretzmann — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 00:39:51 +0000

“If we are not even free anymore to decide something as basic as what we wish to eat or drink, how much freedom do we really have left?” ~ Ron Paul

Click here to view the video on YouTube.

Share/Bookmark

Obama Should Listen to Jefferson

David Kretzmann — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 01:24:38 +0000

In light of the disturbing developments with the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, legislation passed by the House and Senate which would allow for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens, it’s only appropriate to share a quote from Thomas Jefferson that is all too fitting for this occasion.

“[T]he same act undertaking to authorize the President to remove a person out of the United States who is under the protection of the Law, on his own suspicion, without accusation, without jury, without public trial, without confrontation of the witnesses against him, without having witnesses in his favour, without defence, without counsel, is contrary to these provisions also of the Constitution, is therefore not law but utterly void and of no force.”

~ Thomas Jefferson; Resolutions Adopted by the Kentucky General Assembly; November 10, 1798

This quote should be sent to every single politician (including President Obama) who thinks indefinitely detaining U.S. citizens is somehow a potential solution in the fight against “terrorism.” Our liberty is being taken by our own government, not far-off “terrorists” in the Middle East. Let’s listen to Thomas Jefferson and respect the rule of law.

Click here to view the video on YouTube.

Share/Bookmark

Happy Birthday, PATRIOT Act

David Kretzmann — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:14:57 +0000

Warrantless searches worked so well for the British Empire in the 1700s, we just had to give it another try in the 21st century. October 26, 2011, marks the tenth year of the USA PATRIOT Act’s existence. Do you feel any safer?

Click here to view the video on YouTube.

Share/Bookmark

Anwar al-Awlaki and the Constitution

David Kretzmann — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 00:12:03 +0000

Anwar al-Awlaki

I have been called unrealistic and “a little nuts” for suggesting that Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, should have been charged and convicted before he was assassinated on September 30, 2011, in a U.S. drone attack in Yemen. It’s hardly an unrealistic position, considering that Awlaki has been on the CIA’s hit list since April 2010. That’s 17 months the Obama Administration had to assemble and present evidence to a court in order to charge and convict Awlaki.

In any case, I would like to hear from people. Which of these four points do you disagree with, and why?

1. The Administration, in the months leading up to Awlaki’s assassination, in light of the visible evidence against Awlaki, should have received a warrant or similar order from a federal court after submitting evidence against Awlaki.

2. This new precedent of it being legally acceptable for U.S. Presidents to assassinate U.S. citizens is a danger to the general American citizenry and the Constitution itself.

3. The Obama Administration, in light of the concerns provided by some of the American public, civil liberties organizations, and members of Congress, should submit its compiled evidence against Awlaki to a federal court/judge.

4. Although contrary to the individual protection of due process guaranteed under the Constitution, assassinations of U.S. citizens carried out by the President are, at the absolute minimum, to be illegal without evidence first being submitted and approved by a federal judge/court.

I am amazed how quickly people defend the assassination of an unconvicted human being, provided a President calls him a bad guy. It is truly sickening. Don’t get me wrong, Awlaki likely deserved his fate; I am not disputing this.

The majority of Americans are happy Awlaki’s dead and don’t think for a second that maybe there’s something wrong with how this justice was served. The death of Awlaki was no doubt a popular event appreciated by most Americans. However, the Constitution and the individual rights it protects is not subject to a popularity contest.

What do you say? Is this just an annoying and uneducated attempt to uphold the Constitution? Should the President have the legal authority to assassinate U.S. citizens when deemed necessary for “national security,” even without any legal charge or conviction?

“What would Constitutional Law professor Barack Obama think of this?”

Click here to view the video on YouTube.

Share/Bookmark

Addressing Common Concerns with Ron Paul

David Kretzmann — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 21:51:24 +0000

When I first heard Ron Paul in the 2007 presidential debates, I thought he was a nut. I considered is ideas to be wacky, extreme, and unnecessary. However, my curiosity was consistently piqued by some of the statements he made in the debates and other interviews. After doing my own research for nearly six months, I realized that everything Ron Paul was saying made complete sense to me. This is a resource page to explain the more touchy and controversial beliefs of Ron Paul, as well as address common concerns and accusations made against Ron Paul.

1. Ron Paul on Abortion

Click here to view the video on YouTube.