hate our freedoms?
What?
Didn't Bush say, "They attacked us because they Hate our freedoms?"
How can a group of people who hate our freedoms actually succeed in removing our freedoms? Are the terrorists actually winning by causing an administration to erode our freedoms in order to keep us safe?
So I ask,
How many freedoms have we lost to federal power so far?
I can think of two off of the top of my head.
I'm sure there are more..
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —"
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Soon, it seems to me that it will be a crime to quote this passage from the Declaration of Independence. as the very words are telling me that I need to overthrow a government that has become destructive to our individual rights.
I know, I know, that is why there are elections, we change the government every time we get a new president. but is that REALLY the case?
I want to examine some of the freedoms that I perceive that we as US citizens have lost.
Lets look at what this new bill being brought before congress
HR 1955:
http://thomas.loc.gov/...
SEC. 899A. DEFINITIONS.
`For purposes of this subtitle:
`(1) COMMISSION- The term `Commission' means the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism established under section 899C.
`(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.
`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
`(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.
First, from the definitions, I am a Violent Radical and can be thrown in jail for life if I promote an extremist belief for the purpose of allowing a change in politicts, religion or the social structure (I.E. the government.)Based on violence. So if we the people want to even promote the idea that the current government should be disbanded by force, we fall under the second definition as listed above. In other words, DO NOT EVEN PROMOTE AN IDEA LIKE THIS.
Second, I or my American born posses of friends are Homegrown Terrorists if I/we plan or even threaten to use force or violence to intimidate the government or the civilian population to further a political or social goal.
I have only one issue with this, if this is true, then I have to ask, is Glenn Ivey a Homegrown Terrorist? (Who the hell is Glenn Ivey?)
Lets look at what he did in Maryland.
First a bit of background:
Glen Ivey is the State’s Attorney of Maryland.
In November of 07, Glen Ivey mandated that all the kids in school should have proof that their Vaccines are up to date. He mandated that the parents of the students who are not up to date regardless of the circumstances as to why the child has no records.
The parents of the students who failed to get needed vaccinations could face fines of $50 a day and up to 10 days in jail if their children do not meet the state's immunization requirements. (Fine, I’m not against forcing people to get their vaccines to control diseases) how it was done is what I am questioning.
They call the parents and children to court, when they arrived, the scene was right out of Orwell’s 1984, There were Police in Riot gear with sub machine guns, and numerous service dogs patrolling the area, Parents and kids were not allowed to leave once they have arrived to the court. All press was intimidated to stay out of the courtroom. The Kids were lined up to enter the court at gunpoint and forced to be given all of the vaccines at the same time. There were no doctors providing the therapy and nobody was evaluating the children for side effects.
The city did not give the parents the choice to sign the vaccine exemption, which states:
The law allows (a) parents/guardians to choose exemptions from immunization requirements based on their personal beliefs, and (b) physicians of children to elect medical exemptions.
I don’t know, but this example seems to be right in line with the definition of a homegrown terrorist as defined by HR1955
"Coercing the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of social objectives."
These parents and children were terrorized by this man into falsely believing that they had no choice in getting these vaccines.
Third, "The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs." So here Again, I would fall under this if I just think about violently changing the current system.
So again, Don’t Even Think About It.
What freedom have I lost here? Some would argue that I have not lost any freedoms so far. And we need this legislation to combat terrorists. But I have to ask, who are the real terrorists?
But I have to wonder if I have lost the freedom to have all laws applied equally to all people regardless of their official title.
"The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
See http://www.law.cornell.edu/... In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/...
For some fun reading
I think that by selectively enforcing laws for different classes of people is one example of a removal of my freedoms.
But that is ok since this has been happening for many years now.
So what other freedoms have we lost?
What about 109th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. RES. 914
http://thomas.loc.gov/...
Condemning the use of photographs of military caskets and funerals for partisan political and fundraising purposes
It is now illegal to use photographs of caskets (with flags draped over them) for fundraising or political purposes.
petty, but a loss of one of my freedoms none the less
I thought the troops were over there to protect our freedoms, not help the current administration destroy our freedoms.
What about Searches and seizures? We hear all of the time from certain sides that the government has removed the idea that the monitoring and recording of private conversations constitutes a `search and seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
So what is the story?
Well according to
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 11
http://thomas.loc.gov/...
The NSA Oversight Act was enacted to give the legal authority to the Federal Government to engage in searches of Americans in connection with criminal investigations, intelligence gathering, and counterintelligence.
"(7) The Supreme Court has consistently held for nearly 40 years that the monitoring and recording of private conversations constitutes a `search and seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
(8) The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and chapters 119 and 121 of title 18, United States Code, were enacted to provide the legal authority for the Federal Government to engage in searches of Americans in connection with criminal investigations, intelligence gathering, and counterintelligence.
Did that just say Criminal Investigations? I thought that was a local police thing.
(9) The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and specified provisions of the Federal criminal code, were expressly enacted as the `exclusive means by which electronic surveillance ... may be conducted' domestically pursuant to law (18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(f))."
And it goes on seemingly to suggest that:
(10) Warrantless electronic surveillance of Americans inside the United States conducted without congressional authorization may have a serious impact on the civil liberties of citizens of the United States.
Why even bother writing that down when there is obviously no intention of following the Constitution.
Brother, it seems that this war on the terrorists that are threatening our freedoms is failing. The terrorists should be beside themselves knowing that they are single handedly making the United States a police state.
And further down, in SEC. 9,
sec. 9. enhancement of electronic surveillance authority in wartime.
Section 111 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1811) is amended by striking `the Congress' and inserting `the Congress or an authorization for the use of military force described in section 2(c)(2) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541(c)(2)) if such authorization contains a specific authorization for electronic surveillance under this section.'.
If we stay at war, then congress can do what ever they want to.
Seems like a good reason to stay at war. I propose that we invade Iran just so that these provisions can stay in place.