Posts Tagged ‘Freedom’

According to Bullock, Hitler was an opportunis...

Image via Wikipedia

As you watch the following video, ask yourself, “what did this six-year-old do besides wanting to get on a plane?”  Watch as she begins to cry because some stranger is putting their hands on her.  Adolf Hitler knew the proper way to warp a society – you go after the children.  The only thing that rules such as this create is an absolute paranoia.

An idea that a child would merit a body search is completely asinine.  But then again, we have a complete asinine governmental system. 

Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
-Benjamin Franklin

Advertisements

The day before the House was going to vote as whether or not to impeach then-President Clinton, Ron Paul was asked about the constitutionality.  As he put it, ‘there has been a lot of talk about the constitution.’  The same can be said about today.  There is a lot of ‘talk’ of the Constituion, but as the following article will show, even the one’s who say they will ‘obey’ the Constitution cannot even read from it right, let alone apply it to the laws they want to pass.

How can we continue to support politicians who have a blatant disregard for the Constitution?  How can we ever expect the interventionist foreign policy to be reversed if the men and women in power don’t care?

“The truth is the most important value we have, because if the truth does not endure, if the government murders truth, if we cannot respect the hearts of these people; then this is not the country in which I was born and it is certainly not the country that I want to die in.”
Kevin Costner from the movie JFK

Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com
Friday, December 31, 2010

Now that Republicans have a majority in Congress, they are pretending to be constitutionalists. In order to demonstrate this, they will theatrically read aloud the Constitution from the floor of the House next week. “And then they will require that every new bill contain a statement by the lawmaker who wrote it citing the constitutional authority to enact the proposed legislation,” the Washington Post reports.

Establishment Republicans, of course, have the same amount of contempt for the Constitution as establishment Democrats. As dedicated worshippers of state power over the individual, Republicans and their ideological twins the Democrats hate the founding principles of this country.

“Conservatives regard civil liberties as coddling devices for criminals and terrorists. They see the First Amendment as a foolish protection for sedition,” writes Paul Craig Roberts. “The conservative assault on the US Constitution is deeply entrenched… Today’s conservatives are so poorly informed that they cannot understand that to lose the Constitution is to lose the country.”

While so-called conservatives pay lip-service to the Constitution, so-called progressives actively trash it and cosign the founding document to irrelevance, as the above video demonstrates.

In the video, a blogger and columnist for the CIA’s favorite newspaper, the Washington Post, says the Constitution has “no binding power on anything” and is confusing – for liberals and other advocates of state power over the individual – because it is over a hundred years old.

Nancy Pelosi and the formerly ruling Democrats also believe the Constitution is irrelevant. “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?” a reporter for CNN asked Speaker Pelosi as Democrats prepared to shove Obamacare down the throats of the American people. Pelosi responded: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

In August, Illinois Democrat Phil Hare told his constituents that he does not give a whit about the Constitution. “I don’t worry about the Constitution on this to be honest,” Hare said in response to a question about the constitutionality of Obamacare.

Hare also demonstrated his contemptible ignorance by saying that the Constitution guarantees each of us “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” In fact, that line is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

“We’ve now arrived at the point where a sitting Congressman can openly state that he doesn’t care what the Constitution says, a sentiment obviously held by a majority of Members since Congress continues to putatively enact ‘laws’ in the utter absence of express constitutional text,” Paul Galvin wrote after Hare made his harebrained comments for the camera.

For the establishment political class, the Constitution is completely irrelevant. Consider the following video where Republican Frank LoBiondo cannot answer a simple question about the document he has sworn to uphold from enemies foreign and domestic:

Even the soon to be leader of the House, John Boehner, is largely clueless about the Constitution. In the following video, he mistakenly attributes a line from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution:

Barry Obama did the same, but then he was reading from a teleprompter:

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” his predecessor reportedly declared. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

Mr. Klein’s dismissive remark about the Constitution is shared by a large number of politicos and other worshippers of state power in the district of criminals. If the establishment political class is going to successfully strip us of our natural and god-given rights, they have to promulgate the idea that the Constitution is irrelevant and nothing more than a quaint piece of goddamn paper.

I just like this video, because ‘we want our country back.’  ‘Because it still belongs to us.’

Ron Paul at the Charity Awards

Posted: December 30, 2010 in Politics
Tags: , ,

I started a conversation with someone I work with last night (just wanting her response) about how service members in the military feel that they are somehow ‘more patriotic’ than those who have not enlisted.  But this will be saved for a later post.

Anyway, she asked me if my rights were threatened, would I fight or would I stand back and say, “I’m anti-war.”  Keep in mind that the hypothetical ‘rights were threatened’ situation she used was not well described.

You know, I am getting real tired of the “fighting for our freedoms” rhetoric.  If we were fighting for our freedoms, things such as what follows in the video would never happen in this country.  Period.

Militants in the Middle East we are fighting really have to be laughing their asses off.  Because we are scaring ourselves in oblivion.  Just like the Japanese-American internment in concentration camps; just like the McCarthyism propaganda under the “Red Scare”.

Our rights are eroding, and we’re the ones to blame.

You Are a Terrorist

Can the liberal mainstream media get any more biased than this?  Come on.  All these winers complaining people are saying nasty things about someone, please, give me a break.  Its the first amendment, people.

Is the mainstream media more credible?  Do they want us censored just like they are?  We are the most free media network out there.  Just because some blogger jumped to conclusion over a speech given by Sherly Sherrod and now all of us have to pay the price.

Since nasty things are being said about people all the time on the blogs, why didn’t they say something sooner.  Oh, I get it.  Becuase one of their own was attacked.

In a free market internet the common sense and free speech of others keeps dubious and sometimes malicious statements “fair and balanced”.

P.S.  Did I mention that outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News hate bloggers because they want to be the only source for news.

Keep the internet free!  Watch the clip here.

 

Here is an article that needs little explination.

Michael Snyder
Business Insider
July 5, 2010

This weekend we celebrated America’s Independence Day.  But are we really a free nation?  The truth is that it is really hard to argue that we are “free” when our currency system and our economy are run by an unelected privately-owned central bank.

You see, the truth is that the U.S. government does not “print money” whenever it wants.  Under the current system, in order to get more U.S. currency, the U.S. government has to borrow it.  The Federal Reserve creates the new currency out of thin air and then either keeps the “U.S. Treasury bonds” they get in return from the U.S. government or they sell them off to others.  But what kind of sense does that make?  Why does a “free government” have to go into debt to print its own currency?  It is the U.S. government that should be printing U.S. currency – not a privately-owned bank called the Federal Reserve.

(From Jefferson To Greenspan: The Complete History Of People Freaking Out About The National Debt –>)

The truth is that the Federal Reserve is about as “federal” as Federal Express is.  And no unelected private central bank should be “running” our economy.  Actually the free market should be running our economy, but if anyone is going to run it, it should at least be the government that we have elected.  But instead we have a group of unelected bureaucrats making our interest rate decisions, determining our money supply levels and deciding which of their friends get big bailouts.  That isn’t the American Dream!  What kind of “democracy” and ”freedom” is that?  The sad truth is that as long as we allow an unelected privately-owned central bank to run our economy we will not be truly free.

The reality is that the Federal Reserve desperately needs to be audited.  The Federal Reserve has never undergone a true comprehensive audit since it was created back in 1913.  The truth is that we have very little idea of what is really going on inside that institution.

And yet they control our currency and our economy.

U.S. Representative Ron Paul had introduced a bill that would have mandated a comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve, but it has now officially been defeated. 

Ron Paul’s proposal to audit the Federal Reserve, which had previously been co-sponsored by 320 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, failed by a vote of 229-198.

Every single Republican in the House voted in favor of the measure, and even 23 Democrats crossed the aisle to vote with Republicans, but it was not enough.

You see, the Federal Reserve convinced 122 Democrats who were originally co-sponsors of Ron Paul’s proposal to jump ship and vote against the measure.

It was truly a sad day for America.

Ron Paul has released a video expressing his disappointment over the defeat of the “audit the Fed” provision…

Franklin Delano Roosevelt called the Constitution “quaint” written in the “horse and buggy era.”  His meaning was simple: it was no longer applicable to todays world.  For those who say the Constitution is outdated; I say, “what has ignoring this cherished piece of documentation gottne us?”  Over $13 trillion dollar debt?  Unprecedented deficits?  Unconstitutional foreign policy? 

What about the loss of liberty?  No disrespect to our American military, but if we were defending freedom abroad, why are we losing so much of them over here?  Shouldn’t we conducting a witch hunt of those in Congress?  Don’t corrupt politicians and rich bankers pose more of a threat to us than some Arab in the Middle East kneeling and saying, “bula, bula, bula.”

The sun has set on the Republic and Liberty is on life support. 

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Thursday, Jun 10th, 2010

A publishing company is drawing ire for placing a disclaimer on the U.S. Constitution and other founding documents, indicating that they are out of date and do not reflect the values of modern America.

Wilder Publications, which carries reprints of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, Common Sense, the Articles of Confederation, and the Federalist Papers, includes a warning on the books that reads:

“This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today.”

The company also provides advice to parents seeking to educate their children on U.S. history:

“Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.”

The clear indication here is that the Constitution and those who value it may be socially inept racists, sexists and homophobes.

In a Fox News article on the story, Walter Olson, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, notes that Wilder may have been forced to place the disclaimers on the documents in order that they not be removed from the shelves by “oversensitive people”:

“Any idea that’s 100 years old will probably offend someone or other,” Olson said. “…But if there’s anything that you ought to be able to take at a first gulp for yourself and then ask your parents if you’re wondering about this or that strange thing, it should be the founding documents of American history.”

Wilder Publications issued the following statement clarifying their position:

“We specialize in classic books and we were receiving complaints about the values depicted in some of the books. We wrote the disclaimer so that we could stop having to point out to our readers that people held different values 100 or 200 years ago. It seems we’re dammed if we do and dammed if we don’t.”

Constitutional attorney Noel Francisco says the idea that the warnings are legally required is ridiculous:

“Would it ever be a legal concern that selling the Constitution would expose you to some kind of liability? No. Never,” Francisco told FoxNews.com. “The Constitution is the founding document of the country, an operative legal document.”

“By putting on the warning, you’re making controversial something that’s not controversial: our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence,” Francisco added.

Angry customers have vented their views at Wilder’s page on Amazon.com

One reviewer notes:

“Really we need to have a disclaimer on our historic documents? The constitution is more important now than any other time in our nations history. I will check every book I purchase and ensure it is not published by Wilder Publications until they stop printing the constitution with a disclaimer.”

Others have vowed to boycott both Wilder and Amazon.

It seems that their anger is somewhat misdirected and should be more focused toward those in positions of authority that have so distorted social and cultural norms to the point where it is considered necessary to place such a disclaimer on freedom.

Take Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan for instance.

Kagan’s has previously argued that the government has a role in policing free speech, that the state should have a remit to censor books and newspaper editorials, as well as the political opinions of radio talk show hosts or television reporters.

In addition, Obama’s information technology czar Cass Sunstein has called for the re-introduction of the “fairness doctrine,” which would force political websites to carry mandatory government propaganda.

While Wilder’s Constitution disclaimer is an alarming story, it is merely part of the fallout of the wider erosion of freedom which, unfortunately, boycotts and one star reviews on Amazon .com will not coming close to fixing.