Originally posted by Frankidealist35
You know, when you are posting here on ATS, you could be making the world a better place and making a difference in the world. Did the government
really make all of you so afraid of speaking out against it that you resort to posting here on ATS because you're afraid to do so in real life
because all of these bills against speaking out against the government?
Absolutely not. Not only do I email information out to my poor, abused friends and family, I write to the congresscritters. But trying to get the
picture across is difficult. What do you do when you show somebody how we pay taxes to the IMF and they don't even know what the IMF is?
Have no handle on the money of the Universe.
Without that, there is no picture they can see. They look at Monsanto, and say, Oh those rotten people!, but never say, Oh my GOG, this affects
They learn of the Codex Alimentarius and claim it's just for liability purposes...
They refuse to process the idea that 900+ pages does not come, neat, tidy and agreed upon by the writers in three weeks, meaning the "Patriot" Act
was begun in its creation LONG before 9/11. And they just can't buy the fact that men who are merely HOPING (with a bit of encouragement, but still
hoping) someone would attack us, would NOT spend that much writing, editing, changing, revising, and so on such a document. Only ones who are IN
CONTROL of the precipitous event would do so.
They don't see the empty prison camps...
I could go on.
People are allowed to petition and assemble and protest against the government. The first amendment guarentees us these rights.
In the world as it was meant to be, you're right. But...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
We see the government messing around with religion. I have been at a relatively small pagan gathering which was broken up - we were doing nothing
disruptive. Car rallies and other events of no threat have been invaded by police. Free speech is being trounced on, and when soldiers are
experimented on without their knowledge and cannot seek redress as a citizen for their treatment in the military, you know that last is slipping.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
With an example of why we need to keep armed (the main one was as protection from tyranny), this one says, in no uncertain terms, we have the right to
bear arms of whatever variety we want. This shall not be infringed. Gun licenses infringe. Limiting the variety infringes. All such laws are
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed
So far, we're good on this one...
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.
Oh dear. With the institution of the War on Drugs, this one went out the window. Today, Federally and in many other locations, any property
belonging to anyone accused
of drug involvement may have their property seized ON THE SPOT. 80% of people who have lost property this way are
never even charged with a crime! Less than 5% get their property back, and then only after long and expensive battles.
With the joint Fed/State/Local police "sweeping" neighborhoods and tearing up shops, "looking for crime," this is most surely dead. (See
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases
arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for
the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
...deprived of ... property, without due process of law (again, War on Drugs). Many of the agencies currently involved with this are complaining
about moves to end the practice because they use the sale of property to fund a large portion of what they do. They seize the property and sell it.
Do they offer just compensation? No.
(more next post)
[edit on 4/30/2008 by Amaterasu]