| TheTip.org |
| Polls | Members | Refer | Forums | Write for TheTip! | Home | Impeach Bush |
Impeach George Bush
Freedom Isn't Free
We sang in school "The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave" and we expected to have to be brave to be free. It's true. In order to win our freedom, we must be brave, because the truth is we've lost our freedom. You think you're free? Our essential freedoms have now all come under the fire of the federal government which, instead of existing now to protect our rights, has come to be the prime force limiting them. There are basic freedoms in the world - not just those spelled out in the constitution. But the ones spelled out in the constitution include explicitly the following rights which are no longer in the posession of the people. This constitutes a breach of contract - the primary contract governing the land. It is the duty and responsibility of the people of the united states to ensure that these matters are set straight as soon as possible.
Source: Robbie Lindauer, 2005-11-15
Candidate: Big Government
Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Now in the united states, there are many religions, all of them have very strict tax-exemption requirements for maintaining their tax-exempt status. But this goes directly against making laws respecting an establishment of religion. If I want to worship tomatoes, then I can, according to the constitution, and the congress should not be allowed to make any laws about it. In an amazing ruling the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Rastafarians could posess marijuana intended for religious practice. But rastafarianism isn't the only religion with odd practices. In modern American society, the protection for religious practice only applies to those religions which aren't seen as hurtful to the society - and that notion "being hurtful to the society" is a temporally and socially relative term - some people think there being marijuana around is good, others bad, mostly depending on religious and socio-economic backgrounds.
The constiution is clear - there are to be NO LAWS WHATEVER about an establishment of religion. Period. This means the IRS doesn't have any jurisdiction to decide whether or not a given establishment qualifies as a non-profit organization, for instance. Now this leaves me siding with the scientologists who almost lost their status as a non-profit because they were almost ruled a non-religion. But if the IRS has the power to decide whether or not Scientology is a religion, why not Mormonism or Catholocism or anything else? As you might imagine, the IRS will be coming up quite a bit here.
______
"or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
The term "abridging" means "reducing in scope while retaining essential elements" - it means that not only can one not remove "essential elements", one can not even so much as reduce the scope of the freedom of speech. What does that mean? It means that yelling fire in a theatre is protected speech. So is singing "have a Pepsi and a smile" - even in a commercial setting. The term "abridging" is one of the things Congress is NOT allowed to do. Anything that would in any way limit in scope our freedom of speech is simply outside the domain of congress. They simply aren't allowed to make any laws about it. The traditional argument "for the public benefit" simply doesn't apply - the constiution is clear and unmistakable. "Abridging" is a very, very definite term meaning a very definite thing. You OUGHT to be able to say what you want - you can read someone else's manuscript and call it your own. You can sing other people's songs, make other people's movies, tell someone that someone else should be killed, etc.
Similarly the freedom of the press - in particular, the FCC appears to be an organization founded by congress for the explicit purpose of managing the press, and as such should be removed. There should be no way for congress to limit the ways in which I publicize my free, protected speech. If I wish to broadcast on the same frequency as ABC in my local neighborhood, I should be able to. Conversely, the practice of the government of creating monopolies for phone, cable and internet companies by leasing pole-space to private companies is an effective ENDORSEMENT of those media by the GOVERNMENT, making it, again, a group of laws that congress doesn't have the power to make, according to our constitution.
On in the internet, the need for freedom of speech is underlined by its relative availability. One can, nearly, publish anything one wants - however, within NOTABLE LIMITS on the internet. Those limits having mostly to do with protecting the so-called "intellectual property" of a few corporations (and I do mean FEW corporations) by preventing the publishing of software programming schemes (the DVD decoding format, for instance), software, serial numbers, song lyrics, etc. But the term free just means FREE - if you aren't free to exercise it, you AREN'T FREE.
Does this mean communication anarchy? Absolutely! Is this a bad thing? Well, only if you're one of the people who's money is invested in preventing free speech by others. Who are they? Well, they're the RIAA, the SIIA and, of course, the DOJ which enforces laws made by congress, whether or not they fit the constitution.
______
"the right of the people peaceably to assemble" - of course, if you're a punk rock group playing in a backyard in Gardena, you KNOW we don't have this right anymore. That's right, folks, we don't have the right to peaceably assemble anymore, and haven't for years. Now we need PERMITS - but permits are legal instruments governed by the state. If a practice is governed by the state, you're not free. If someone ELSE can tell you you can't do it, you're not free. It may say somewhere that permits can't be unreasonably withheld, but the term "unreasonably" is relative to whoever is making the decision, and unless it's you making the decision, you're not free.
______
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
The term "ARMS" here, broadly includes cannon, guns, swords, knives, armor, etc. "Weapons considered collectively" - that means anything - switch-blades, machine-guns, explosives, tanks, everything. ARMS are ARMS. "Infringed" means "to go against", it is a synonym with "contravene" or "conflict" and the meaning of the sentence above would be properly translated into lower english "You can't make any law that would limit the right of the people to acquire and keep any kind of weapon they want."
Of course, we know that in the United States, this is not the case. There are plenty of laws that prevent people from owning and keeping weapons of all kinds. Again, if you're not making the decision, you're not free.
______
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizuers, 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"
There are two things here that don't happen. First, the US issues "generalized warrants" - warrants that allow the general investigation of a matter - not just a particular occasion or location. Second, the term "effects" means "posessions" or "things that one owns" and while it obviously SHOULD include cars, it doesn't in fact, since if a police officer pulls you over, they can look in your car - without a warrant. If they decide they see something suspicious, they can search the rest. Again, no warrant.
With the war on drugs, the government can pre-emptively sieze your property, and keep it - and not just if you are suspected of dealing or using, but even if you are considered an associate of someone who does so.
This right flew out the doors years ago.
______
In article V, it says "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Two famous cases are in our courts now - one is the case of Jose Padilla who was held without due process, that is, without being indicted or tried, for several years. He's rotting in jail because our government doesn't like him. The administrative branch is testing the waters, seeing how far they can go. But there is a principle at work too - namely that the police are enabled to use deadly force WITHOUT DUE PROCESS - that is, they can shoot at you without you having been tried. But this is decidedly what the constitution says they CAN'T DO. It's granted that some infamous criminals can not be apprehended without force - HOWEVER, the constiution calls for a WARRANT to be issues in those cases, where due process of law has been followed. But in the United States, the Police can shoot without a warrant. The argument that it needs to be this way is bogus, in England it is not this way, for instance, and there is no need whatever for the police to regularly carry weapons. (Not that England is a shining example of freedom, just that it's possible to have police that don't carry weapons).
Also, recently the courts decided that a government agency could decide on what basis to excercise eminent domain ARBITRARILY allowing them to sieze a piece of property without the consent of the owner, for ANY PURPOSE WHATEVER, therebye obviating the notion of private property. IF YOU DON'T DECIDE on what occasion you'll keep and on which you'll sell, you don't own the piece of property in question - the government ultimately does.
______
Article VI guarantees the right to a speedy and public trial. But Jose Padilla and various other cases have recently made that entire article into a joke - years have gone by without so much as an endictment. Other cases have been sequestered due to national security. But again, the question of what is more important - national security or the substance of the nation which it purports to protect is decided by whim, not by principle. For if it were decided by principle, the constiution GUARANTEES that every criminal trial should be speedy and public. Period.
______
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Unfortunately, the term "excessive" is subjective, but this makes the entire clause invalid. One decides ad hoc what is excessive or unusual. On the other hand, the term "cruel" is an objective term meaning "lacking kindness or compassion; able to inflice pain or suffering; causing suffering and pain". And here our entire criminal justice system is problematic. But most obviously the death penalty appears to be a straight-out flaunting of the constiution's guarantee. There simply is no "non-cruel" way to kill someone. In order to kill someone, one must cause them pain and suffering - both physical and mental. There's no two-ways about it. And the ways in which it has been done (hanging, electrocution and even lethal injection) have been especially cruel. It's not a valid argument that things could and have been worse, because the constitution simply forbids cruel punishments.
More broadly, though, is the penal system which imprisons people in shabby and understaffed institutions at which people regularly commit suicide and are murdered, raped and assaulted. The mental anguish and physical suffering of the prison system is simply cruel as evinced by the rate of assault, rape, murder and suicide.
In 2002, suicide was .047% whereas in the general population, it's .037%, similarly the incidence of violent crimes is much higher in prison than out. There is a natural explanation - there is a higher concentration of violent criminals in prison than without - but this is not an excuse to violate the constitution.
The reason for the clause in the constitution is to ensure that we are not a society of fear - one that fears being sent to jail because it's terrifying and cruel. But this is exactly what we have allowed our politicians to create for us.
______
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
This means that if we have a right, already, the constitution can't be used to take it away. So any time there's a "right" that is retained by the people - whatever it is - the constitution and by extension the federal government- can not be used to deny or disparage it.
A common interpretation of tax law is that the right to tax is the right to control, and so by ceteris paribus, the federal government can't have the right to control, for instance, our right to make money, our right to print money, our right to exchange goods and services, our right to produce goods and services, our rights to acquire food, shelter, etc. In short, unless there is some genuine violent crime, the constitution of the United States appears to say very clearly - the federal government has no jurisdiction.
______
The federal reserve act establishes "a more effective supervision of banking in the United States", by establishing a national currency and method for its control. Unfortunately, this act very, very seriously infringes on the existing rights of people to trade and do business. You have to remember that there was a time when hard goods could be traded directly for hard goods (two horses for three cows, and the like). And that the exchanges WERE NOT TAXED. The establishment of the uniform currency and IRS made it impossible to trade goods without paying the federal government - again making us essentially subjects of the federal government. This violates our constitution because congress was enabled to make a law taking away a right which we already had (e.g. the right to free trade).
Now these are just the constitutionally GUARANTEED RIGHTS.
Other rights, our natural rights as humans, are also infringed by our government, in particular:
The right to free trade -
Humans, not subject to other forms of coersion - can exchange goods and services WITHOUT PAYING A THIRD PARTY. What does this mean? It means that if I have a horse and you have a cow and I want to trade, I don't have to give someone else a piece of the cow and you don't have to give someone else a piece of the horse in order to do the exchange. But precisely this is what the IRS and state tax boards do by setting up income and sales taxes. These kinds of taxes were also the kind of taxes that led the early americans to want to secede from Britain (along with the encouragement of the French!)
The right to use your property -
In particular, Land Use Laws - wherebye the government can decide for us what we can do on land that we own. In essence, it takes away our true ownership of the land and makes us lease-holders to the state. In combination with property taxes, this makes us simply modern-day serfs - having to pay to live on and use the land which we don't actually own (even if we have title).
The Bottom Line
What I'm saying is that the United States has gone so far from its constitutional basis that our contract with our government is effectively broken. It is the DUTY and RIGHT of people of conscience to take action - to ensure that our government is restored to it's legal position - as a servant of the people instead of a master of it - and this will require a concerted effort.
As a gen-x-er, I'm naturally inclined NOT to participate in groups, to be suspect of any radicalism, and to be mistrusting of authority. But this self-oriented way of being can not stand against the tyrrany of the existing political regimes that attempt to control the country politically and economically unfairly and unjustly using mechanisms set up to guarantee our freedoms.
I therefore am proposing the following:
1) That every encumbent, whether republican, democrat or independent, be unelected in the next term.
2) That each person directly engage the American civil Liberties Union to ensure the ongoing legal protection of our rights.
3) That each person directly engage the Libertarian Party, in particular, the effort to revoke the 16th ammendment which provides for the income tax, as well as the revocation of local land taxes everywhere.
4) That each person actively participate in local land use policy and reform to ensure that owners of their land can do what they want with their land.
5) That a comittee for freedom be set up to guarantee that these projects be carried out with all due dilligence.
IN ORDER THAT our children (I have three) when they grow up, will be able to ride horses in their pastures, to live free and prosper and not suffer the tyrrany of an oppressive government by ensuring that no government agency is able to become an oppressor.
Robbie Lindauer
Add a comment to this Message in our Forums.
While you're at it, check out our forums too!
User Originated Comments:
From: the real conservative
2008-05-08 00:00:00
why instead of slamming bush do you not find ways
to help him it may not be free to be free but the
least you could do is try and earn it the un even
has articles about not shirking on civil duties
and being rewarded
From: Andy Horning
2006-02-03 00:00:00
i'm a 2004 gop candidate for u.s. congress, and a
true conservative. (homeschool the kids, go to
church on sunday, the whole thing)
so i signed
a petition to impeach bush. please see
www.thefreedomfarm.com to see why.
liberty or
bust!
andy h.
freedom, indiana
From: Tolik Z
2006-02-01 00:00:00
inna gudiev write me an email.
tzatsev@gmail.com
its important. god bless
From: Angry Vet
2006-01-06 00:00:00
this is neither the country i served nor any
government or land i recoginize. this is not the
same place i grew up in.
From: LOOK
2005-12-09 00:00:00
i know that we owe our blessed land of the free
more than we can even imagine. we are breaking
our backs and wasting our breath.
the
true freedom fighters are our children, the
youth.
let me enlighten you on the simple
fact that each generation that has gone by, our
government is targeting those that do not know any
better.
i can remember our government
testing tags on animals in the wild to be able to
track them, now they are putting them in
elementary schools to keep up with their
information, then when those kids get older, they
will recognize that as the norm and allow an even
further atrosity on our freedoms. the government
will then be able to use tags on adults. then
before long the next generation will be fitted
with microchips at birth, if that hasn't happened
already.
corporate entities are taking
away medical, so unless you are able to afford to
go to the doctor and have a catscan or an x-ray on
your skull, there is no way to know for sure, is
there?
my point, these government tests
are aimed at the youth, for who do you think will
fill the shoes of our president in the
future.
we must act, not
talk.
if you want someone trustworthy,
than i suggest the people come together on this
one and simple truth.
all for one, one
for all
we must take over. or it will be
too late.
it will be a war
it will be
difficult
but how are we to protect our
young if we can not protect
ourselves.
prayer is not enough
you
must act.
or you must fail.
the
sooner the better, because as of right now, the
government is planning, coniving
;-/.
soon the people will not be able to
do a damn thing.
we are already in that
position, but wait until our children grow up
ignorant and useless to their
motives.
then what will we do?
what
could we do?
it is not enough to follow a
system that was built to destroy us, for how long
does it take for anything to go through the
courts, and now bush has his buddies sitting in
the high chairs.
fire can not be fought
with fire...
brute force against brute
force, call on your soldiers
, call on them
that would protect their families before they are
destroyed in this war.
the soldiers must
be on our side. they must deny bush or they and
us will both be destroyed.
little by
little our soldiers are dying, if we let it go on,
there will be no soldiers to protect us.
Related News
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
owned by TheTIP.
[ Skip Next | Next | Random Site | List Sites |Previous ]
NEWS | ACTION | RESULTS | POLLS | MEMBERS | SEARCH