Uhm, that is what will occur IF/WHEN the Constitution that came next was followed.
Regard$,
--MJ
"Usurpation, the exercise of power not granted, is not legitimized by repetition" -- Raoul Berger.
At 01:00 PM 6/2/2011, you wrote:
Uhm, pretty much THE job description of the government--
"insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote
the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves
and our Posterity"
On Jun 2, 12:41 pm, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected]>
wrote:
> You don't have freedom if you reply on government to protect you.
>
> On 06/02/2011 09:10 AM, plainolamerican wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > one day enough people will finally
> > be fed up enough that we will take our freedom back
> > ---
> > you don't have freedoms that you can't protect
>
> > On Jun 2, 11:00 am, Jonathan Ashley<[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> *The Patriot Act, Fox News, the TSA and Feeling Less Free*
> >> 1 June 2011 by Szandor Blestman
>
> >> The Patriot Act, in my opinion, has been one of the most egregious,
> >> liberty violating acts that has ever been passed by congress. It was a
> >> knee jerk reaction to the 9/11 attacks. It is so huge and was passed so
> >> quickly after that event that any thinking person must realize it had to
> >> be written well before the attacks took place, was waiting for just such
> >> an attack so it could be introduced, and could not have possibly been
> >> read and its implications understood by anyone who voted for it. I doubt
> >> very much that any congress critter has yet to read it in its entirety.
> >> Here it is almost ten years later and it still sullies the political
> >> landscape of this once great republic.
>
> >> It seems that most common folk don't fully understand what the Patriot
> >> Act truly is. If the polls are to be believed (I personally don't trust
> >> most polls) then they seem to think that the Patriot Act has somehow
> >> made our nation more secure. They seem to believe the propaganda that is
> >> spewed forth from corporate establishment media giants that the Patriot
> >> Act has done its job and protected us. Yet it wasn't the Patriot Act
> >> that stopped the shoe bomber or the underwear bomber, it was the
> >> passengers themselves. And every time a plot is reported foiled, it is
> >> later determined that the plot only occurred because some federal
> >> security agency or another helped it along. So one might wonder, if the
> >> Patriot Act has been doing its job, will they finally get rid of it if
> >> it fails and another terrorist event occurs? I doubt that very much.
> >> That's too much like hoping that once Osama Bin Laden is finally and
> >> officially killed in some special forces raid that the wars of
> >> occupation will end and our troops will come home.
>
> >> Recently, three of the most soviet like, Big Brother type provisions of
> >> the Patriot Act were set to expire. Congress didn't want to deal with
> >> them earlier in the year, likely because they were worried about
> >> backlash. The Senate did what they so often do, put off the vote until
> >> the last minute and then rushed the legislation through without proper
> >> debate because they don't want the legislation scrutinized. They passed
> >> a four year extension on this monstrosity complete with its most
> >> controversial provisions because, in my humble opinion, they don't want
> >> to give up power and they'd love to be able to arrest their political
> >> adversaries should push come to shove.
>
> >> Rand Paul, the freshman senator from Kentucky, was the only one who
> >> stood up to this abuse of power. He was the only one who questioned the
> >> power of the party leadership, on both sides of the aisle. He merely
> >> asked for a debate on introducing amendments meant to protect freedoms
> >> we as Americans are supposed to enjoy. For all his efforts he was
> >> excoriated by the establishment for not following like a sheep instead
> >> of applauded for his stand and his most American individualist ideals.
>
> >> Now, I'm not one to watch corporate television news programs, but I came
> >> across a Fox program with a bunch of talking heads discussing this
> >> issue. I was appalled to hear them more or less condoning a police state
> >> in our nation. They are taking a thousand years of struggle against
> >> authoritarianism and throwing it away, defending a doctrine that allows
> >> government agents to spy on people going about their daily business
> >> without just cause. They are defending a doctrine that claims everyone
> >> is guilty until they can prove themselves innocent. It was this kind of
> >> tyranny that the founding fathers fought against. This kind of tyranny
> >> led to the writing of the Declaration of Independence. This kind of
> >> tyranny was the reason they included the Bill of Rights in the
> >> constitution. The Patriot Act is as un-American, fascist, soviet-esque
> >> and unpatriotic as it gets. It violates the natural rights of
> >> individuals in almost every way they can be violated and yet these men
> >> continue to support it without so much as batting an eye, and then they
> >> call Rand Paul extreme. To them, the senator from Kentucky is extreme
> >> because he values the principles America was founded upon. One can only
> >> assume they consider all individualists, constitutionalists,
> >> libertarians and anyone who wants a smaller, more accountable federal
> >> government as extreme. To them, an extremist is one who challenges the
> >> supremacy of their corporate masters.
>
> >> One of the most remarkable statements came from Charles Krauthammer. He
> >> claimed that all those warnings about America becoming a police state
> >> didn't pan out. Has he been living under a rock for the last ten years?
> >> He asked something along the line of is their anyone who thinks their
> >> freedoms have been curtailed? He suggested that he hadn't heard of
> >> anyone who felt that way. Well, I for one feel that way, Mr.
> >> Krauthammer, so now you have heard of someone.
>
> >> How about all those people who are subjected to naked body scanners at
> >> the airports and TSA gropings? Do you think they might feel a little
> >> less free? I know that I'd like to feel like I could fly places, but I
> >> don't want to subject myself to their intrusions. I seem to recall that
> >> others have even protested against such measures. How could you call
> >> that anything but a police state provision? It is the Patriot Act that
> >> has given us the TSA, and now they're coming out of the airports and are
> >> soon to be seen on a street, in a mall, or at a prom dance near you.
> >> They needed to do more than just debate amendments to the Patriot Act,
> >> they need to repeal the entire bill.
>
> >> How about the checkpoints that are popping up, especially in border
> >> states? Do you think that the people who have to pass through them feel
> >> less free? Do you think that they might start to have an inkling that
> >> something has gone wrong and this is no longer the free nation it has
> >> been claimed to be? How about all those people who want to drink raw
> >> milk? Do you think they feel less free when the Feds tell them they
> >> can't decide for themselves what to put in their own bodies? How about
> >> the peaceful Amish, do you think they might feel less free when their
> >> farms are raided by SWAT teams for selling the milk others ask for? How
> >> about the dancers at the Jefferson Memorial? Do you think they might
> >> feel a little less free as they were handcuffed for prancing around a
> >> little or gently swaying in place? These are things that have all been
> >> normalized because of the Patriot Act and similar legislation. It is the
> >> federal government that has become extreme. It is they who are cracking
> >> down on peaceful individuals and restricting normal human activity they
> >> should have no business even caring about.
>
> >> Do you like the fact that FBI agents can now write their own warrants
> >> without having to so much as show a judge probable cause, just like the
> >> king's men were able to do in the 1700s? Do you like the fact that they
> >> can break into anyone's home they want when no one's home and steal
> >> whatever they wish without a warrant, simply on a suspicion, and not
> >> have to be accountable to anyone? Do you think it's ok that they can
> >> proclaim someone an enemy combatant at anytime they wish and hold them
> >> indefinitely without a trial? Do you believe that I'm a little extreme
> >> for mentioning such provisions and that your government would never do
> >> such things? The Patriot Act grants government agents the legal
> >> authority to take such actions, and when someone has such power it is
> >> only a matter of time before that power is abused and some innocent
> >> individuals suffer because of that abuse. Besides, just because you may
> >> not have heard about such things happening doesn't mean such events
> >> haven't already occurred. You certainly can't count on the corporate
> >> media to inform you of such abuses when they do happen.
>
> >> There are plenty of people that feel their freedoms have been curtailed.
> >> There are plenty of people who feel less safe because of government
> >> intrusion, not more secure. Everyday more and more people become victims
> >> of state agents. Everyday new police brutality videos come out. Everyday
> >> stories of the police state grow more and more egregious. Everyday the
> >> politicians show us they don't give a damn about individual rights and
> >> care only about their own power. Everyday the corporate media shows its
> >> true colors by defending collectivist doctrine and the agenda of the
> >> power elite. I believe, however, that one day enough people will finally
> >> be fed up enough that we will take our freedom back. On that day, it
> >> will be remembered who supported natural individual rights and who
> >> fought for the authoritarian collectivist agenda.
>
> >> http://fr33agents.net/2011/06/01/the-patriot-act-fox-news-the-tsa-and ...
> >> --
>
> >> Freedom is always illegal!
>
> >> When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we
> >> declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we
> >> have any possibility of being free.
>
> --
>
> Freedom is always illegal!
>
> When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we
> declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we
> have any possibility of being free.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
