| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/25 |
| 2006/1/24-26 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41505 Activity:high |
1/24 [ Preserved b/c this thread is still active ]
Domestic eavesdropping opponents have been using the misquote from
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security
deserve neither". http://csua.org/u/er9 [nyt]
Now, this is a misquote, and the difference between the quote and
the misquote is substantial and relevant to the debate. However,
I don't recall any popular media calling the protestors on the
misquote. Why is this? Does the press not know the quote is wrong?
Do they simply not care?
\_ Isn't this entire thread an attempt to ignore the larger issue?
\_ What I wanna know is, did "those who sacrifice freedom for safety
deserve neither" motd guy participate in the rally, or it just
some place like http://democraticunderground.com that's spreading the
misquote? (anyway, http://CNN.com says it's a "paraphrase")
\_ Good for CNN. "Paraphrase" is unfair to the substantial
difference between the quote and the misquote, but that's
still better than NYT and CBS, who just ignored the error
altogether.
\_ the substantiveness of the difference between the paraphrase
and the exact quote is debatable as well
\_ only if people who can't comprehend english are debating.
\_ not in my view
\_ Is f(g(x)) ~= f(x)? Only for very few f() and g().
\_ you're entitled to your view even if it makes no
sense. welcome to america.
\_ but it does make sense, so ...
\_ http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/quotable/quote04.htm
(what Mr. Franklin actually said, and his mouth moves too)
\_ http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader$605
Actually is "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase
a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty or Safety."
That still seems pretty close to me.
\_ IOW, the quote is silent on whether it's ok to give up liberty
for non-temporary safety. (And indeed much of government is a
trade-off between liberty and safety.) Now, did Bush buy
temporary or non-temporary safety with the eavesdropping?
Hence my claim that the difference is relevant to the debate.
\_ Also, the quote is silent on whether we should enact Daylight
Saving Time, abandon the gold standard, or legalize gay
marriage. However, while it would be a stretch to say that
the quote proposed any of the latter, it's a reasonable
extrapolation to say that the quote discourages sacrificing
liberty for any kind of safety, especially in light of a lack
of any further written material by Franklin in opposition.
More to the point, however, what he's really saying is that
cowardly people who would compromise with tyrants should be
done away with. Or, in common parlance, snitches gots to
be capped.
\_ This is a childish distraction, not a real point. He is
clearly talking about liberty and security, not any of
the red herrings you bring up. You *may* be correct when
you say he was really talking about the larger issue of
compromising with tyrants (although I personally doubt it,
it isn't an unreasonable interpretation), but the rest of
your post about unrelated issues is useless. Misquoting
the man to make some political point shows a great deal
of either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. Which of
those is worse is left to the reader to decide.
\_ Is "People who trade dignity for a one-night stand deserves
\_ Is "People who trade dignity for a one-night stand deserve
neither" equivalent to "People who trade dignity for a
long-term relationship deserves neither"? Both statements
long-term relationship deserve neither"? Both statements
may be true, but are they equivalent? You do understand
2 true statements may still not be the same.
\_ My bringing up the admittedly ridiculous examples I did
was an attempt to illustrate the dangers of drawing
conclusions from omissions in the man's words. As the
quote says that giving up liberty for temporary safety
is not to be done, and since Franklin never followed
that up with a caveat or exception, it is reasonable to
draw the conclusion that he would have had a similar
distaste for giving up liberty for non-temporary safety.
\_ No. Giving up liberty for non-temporary safety is
called government.
\_ You're assuming that the liberties that you
purport to have given up in exchange for safety
were actually in your possession to begin with.
\_ Ref state of nature, Locke, and the social
contract.
\_ If he never followed up with any further statements
on the subject we can only conclude he had nothing
more to say on the matter. Anything else is jumping
to unfounded conclusions. By your reasoning, the
opposite of your assumption could also be said and
it would be an equally unfounded conjecture.
\_ *shrug* Invent a time machine or consult a
medium and ask him yourself, then.
\_ Well, you are the one trying to impute extra
meaning to Franklin's quote. We're saying
he said what he said, and reading anything
more into it would be unjustified. If you
go back, this subthread started with "IOW,
the quote is silent on...".
more into it would be unjustified. Looking
back, this subthread started with "IOW, the
quote is silent on..."
\_ ? I'm saying we can't know. I'm not making
any assumptions about what he meant. We'll
never know unless there's some other written
document somewhere clarifying. Why do you
think I'd need a time machine for anything?
\_ Is "People who would trade $100K up front for a monthly
payment of $5k for a year deserve neither" equivalent to
"People who would trade $100K up front for a monthly
payment of $5k for the rest of their lives deserve neither"?
payment of $5k for the rest of their lives deserve
neither"?
\_ Your analogy assumes the quantification of the
unquantifiable. Or, as WSB put it, "There are no
honorable bargains involving exchange of qualitative
merchandise... for quantitative merchandise."
\_ Which part is unquantifiable? This PP's analogy
uses only quantifiables so you must mean the phrase
"temporary" from Franklin's quote is unquantifiable?
Or you mean "essential"? Please explain.
\_ Comparing two quantities ($100K and $60K) is
easily done. Comparing two qualities (liberty
and safety) is not.
\_ Hmm, ok, then you disagree with Franklin?
\_ How about comparing 'safety' and 'little
temporary safety'?
\_ The original quote also says "essential liberty." One may
argue that essential liberty includes the liberty to
communicate, but that liberty does not cover CLEARTEXT
communications, ie the gov. can't (1) forbid you from using
public-key encryption or (2) force you give them your private
key, BUT they can listen to you conversation if you do it in
the clear.
\_ One may argue that, but it's a moronic argument. -dans
\_ One may argue that, but it's a moronic argument. -dan
\_ Why? Communicating in cleartext is basically the
same as talking in public. One must assume that
as soon as the communications leaves the confines
of one's own home, it is available to everyone.
If you don't value the privacy of your communication
to the level necessary to take precautions against
eavesdropping, you have assumed the risk that the
your communications will be intercepted.
I'm only asking whether it is an ESSENTIAL liberty
to communicate in cleartext. I can accept that it
a nice to have liberty, but I cannot accept that
it is essential.
\_ Only recently has it been possible for ordinary
people to encrypt phone conversations. Are you
saying that the government had the ability to tap
phone conversations for the last 100 years without
a warrant? Why would the courts disagreee with that?
\_ Many different ciphers/codes have existed as
long as phones have been around. Arguably OTP
has also existed since at least WW2. If you
value your privacy enough you should use the
state of the art cipher system for the era in
which you are living. Yes it slow, yes it is
inefficient and hampers communication, but
that is the price of secure communication.
It is not just the government that has had the
ability to tap and record phone conversations
for decades. Private industry has this ability
as well.
I am not arguing for an interpretation of search
under the 4th amend. I am arguing that cleartext
communication is not an essential liberty as
used by Franklin.
long as phones have been around. It is not
easy to have a two way conversation but it
is doable. If you value your security that
much, then the inconvenience is worth it.
NOTE: I am not arguing for an interpretation
of search under the 4th amend. I am arguing
that cleartext communication is not an essential
liberty w/in Franklin's use of that term.
In addition, my assertion also applies to all
forms of communication, including letters.
I think that the term essential in this context
would not cover the liberty to mail letter w/o
them being subject to review by the post office.
It is not an ESSENTIAL liberty that one have
the ability to send letters in the clear.
\_ This quote is more popularly used by libertarian nutjobs to support
things like right-to-own-machine-guns. If the media doesn't point
out the exact quote when it's used by Charlton Heston, is it an
artifact of the right-wing media? -tom
\_ URL with Charlton Heston or nutjob, media, and the quote please.
\_ not quite all your parameters, but close: -!tom
http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/notablequotes.htm
yes, I know it's not a misquote
here's Mr. Heston, and he doesn't misquote too
http://www.nrahq.org/transcripts/denver_close.asp
\_ http://www.twelvearyannations.com/id28.htm
(Aryan Nations World Headquarters) -tom
\_ Well, Aryan Nations isn't "libertarian nutjobs" or
Charleston Heston, and a self-promotional web site
isn't a popular media report. Otherwise you're dead on.
\_ You're a moron in several different ways, but primarily
because it's not the newspaper's job to correct the
people it's quoting, except when it's editorializing.
When it's just a news story, you report what was
said, you don't say "Charleton Heston said that
those who give up liberty for safety deserve neither,
but the actual Benjamin Franklin quote is 'those who
would give up essential liberty for safety...'".
That's simply not the job of a reporter.
And if you want to split hairs between the Aryan
Nation and libertarian nutjobs (I really don't think
the difference is significant), you can find similar
misquotes at
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1554499/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39b6b6d66946.htm
and plenty of others. -tom
\_ Your claim was specific. You said "This quote is
more popularly used by libertarian nutjobs...".
Despite your rude bluster, you still have not
substantiated your claim. 2 tries, and you still
haven't found "libertarian nutjobs" who use
"this quote". You also claimed Charlton Heston
misquoted Franklin. Again, a specific claim, and
you have not backed that one up either. OBTW, CNN
said the protestors "paraphrased" Franklin.
\_ Uh, so freerepublic doesn't count as
libertarian nutjobs? -tom
\_ Absolutely not. Nutjobs? Yes. Libertarian?
No, no, no, no, no! The freepers are a bunch
of uneducated loud mouthed morons that all
clear thinking people across the political
spectrum wish would go away, but they are
definitely not libertarians. Please get the
bare basics right before posting.
\_ Geeze, you really are nitpicking.
OK, how about
<http://http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle1996/le960801.html
(The Libertarian Enterprise)
<http://http://www.libertyforall.net/2003/archive/sept28/price.html
(Liberty For All)
<http://http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,47823,00.html
(Radley Balko, Cato Institute)
Give it up, already. -tom
\_ That was my first post in this thread.
My nit isn't your quoting, per se, it
is your gross misclassification of the
freepers which makes me think you've
either never read what they have to say
and are just repeating what you've been
told or worse, you have read the
freeper junk and can't see they aren't
libertarians at all and thus have no
idea what a libertarian is. I really
don't care what libertarians might have
misquoted Franklin. Not my game.
\_ But Tom, where is "this quote" in any
of your links? You specifically said
"this quote".
\_ Search for "liberty for safety." -tom
\_ You specified a particular quote. Also,
while the freepers are certainly nutjobs, not
even they'd tell you they are libertarians.
Strike 3.
\_ 0 for 3 isn't bad. it could've been worse.
\_ I don't know, he keeps trying. Seems to be
going for a solid 0 for 10.
\_ again, i think the real issue is not rather one should allow
domestic eardropping or not. The real issue is that as it is
right now, no one really knows the scope of domestic spying,
no check and balance is in place. So, in case of wrongfully accused
or that such program has being targeted for political purposes,
no one can turn the case over. It is all depend upon Bush Co
to decide who is 'terrorist' or not. Bush can easily use this
mechanism to spy on Democrat Party Committee. This is just like
\_ IC! DEMOCRAT__*IC*_ PARTY! You scoundrel!
You petty traitor! You villain! *IC*!
Why are you and Karl Rove always torturing
us with your vicious little RepubiKKKan
smears on the motd and your official
publications?! *IC*!
\_ Sounds like it's time to up the dosage
*again*, man. Or cut back..waaaaaay back
on the caffeine.
Watergate except it is now legal to do so.
\_ This may be a case of it has always been legal to do so, not
it is now legal to do so. The situation is different from
Watergate b/c the wiretaps in Watergate were conducted for
purely domestic purposes. Here the wiretaps are ostensibly
conducted for foreign affairs purposes. The distinction may
become impt, b/c the Pres. has far more power to act in
foreign affairs than in domestic affairs.
\_ regardless, there should be a check-n-balance mechanism
in place.
\_ Arguably the const. disagrees with you. The BoR may
not apply to executive power during a time of war,
when hostiles have been operating on American soil.
\_ So any President, on nothing more than their own
whim, can claim anyone is doing something
related to a "foreign" power, without any evidence
whatsover, and declare all Constitutional rights for
that person invalid? And no court or legislature
has any recourse? Is that your contention?
\_ There are limits to the executive power, BUT
those limits arguably only exist either (1)
during peacetime or (2) during wartime when
enemy forces are not operating on US soil.
This is clearly not peace time and this is
a wartime scenario where the enemy is engaged
in operations on US soil, therefore the BoR
may not apply.
\_ What events will signify the end of the war?
We defeated the Taliban and Saddam Hussein and
occupy Iraq and have a puppet government in
Afghanistan... Aren't we on a never ending quest
to save my girlfriend now? I mean, when will the
"War on Terror" end, and if it isn't ending
anytime soon, doesn't that mean the President
will have expanded powers for decades?
\_ I find it interesting that the balance of
government branches issue is so important
yet does anyone here not understand that
the President has always had the ultimate
power since the mid 1900s? Without anyone
else's say so they can start a nuclear war.
Is that ok? If so, then why don't we trust
the office holder with lesser responsibilities
than all human life on the planet? I'm not
arguing for/against, I just find the reasoning
that "super power over life and death with no
checks" is ok while "omg, they're going to
listen to me talk sexy to my gf!!!" is not.
\_ Just because the President was given one
important power due to military neccesity
doesn't mean that he has unlimited power
to do anything.
\_ Actually the Pres. does have unlimited
power to do anything he wants in wartime
IF habeas is suspended. [ I know that
habeas hasn't been suspended, BUT if
it were, the Pres. would have the power
to do anything he deems necessary in
order to protect the republic. ]
\_ The conditions that signify the end of the
war are clear in my post. The Pres. authority
to violate the BoR will end when there are
no longer any foreign hostiles engaged in
operations on US soil. Perhaps this will take
decades, perhaps it will take longer. I do
not know, but I feel that AQ et. al. pose
such a threat to civilization, that any and
all means must be used to vanquish them.
Re "saving my gf": I disagree, despite the
lack of domestic terrorism
since 9/11, there is no
proof that AQ et. al. are
no longer carrying out long
term operations w/in the US.
Until such proof is avail.
the emergency exists. Such
proof can be made available
by the worldwide destruction
of militant islam; thus we
do not have to rely on an
assertion of proof via the
executive branch.
\_ More people in the United States have been
struck by lightning than died in domestic
terrorist attacks in the last decade. I
think you severely overreacting to a very
minor threat and giving up our liberties
because of a very minor problem. Your
paranoia and fearfulness over a tiny
problem are not worth tearing up the
Constitution.
minor threat and are giving up our liberties
because of your paranoia and media generated
hype and fearfulness.
\_ If you receive anal pleasure 100 times
in a year, it's no big deal. If you
receive it 20 times in a morning, you
might have problems. |
| 5/25 |
|
| csua.org/u/er9 -> www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/politics/24cnd-wiretap.html?hp&ex=1138165200&en=6f16af411576fd83&ei=5094&partner=homepage Enlarge This Image Charles Dharapak/Associated Press Members of the audience protested Attorney General Alberto R Gonzales's speech on domestic eavesdropping at Georgetown University today. Mr Gonzales, a key architect of the surveillance program, said the operation "is both necessary and lawful" and that he believed any president would have taken the steps Mr Bush did. " I think it would be irresponsible to do otherwise," he said at a speech at Georgetown University Law Center. Mr Gonzales' address, along with seven television appearances Monday night and this morning, was part of a carefully orchestrated attempt by the Bush administration to recast the debate on the NSA program as one over national security rather than civil liberties. The administration's aggressive response in recent days reflects a clear shift in strategy. In the immediate aftermath of the program's disclosure last month in The New York Times, Mr Bush refused to acknowledge the program's existence and said public discussion of it was "shameful." Now, however, senior administration officials are delivering a series of stump speeches, with President Bush scheduled to visit the NSA in Fort Meade, Md on Wednesday to reassure agency employees whose normally secret activities have come under scrutiny. With polls showing the public evenly split about the eavesdropping program, Mr Gonzales - like Mr Bush and Vice President Cheney before him - told students at the Georgetown law center that he welcomed a "worthy debate" over the limits of presidential power. More than two dozen students in the audience responded by turning their backs on him and standing stone-faced before live television cameras for the duration of Mr Gonzales' half-hour speech. Five protesters donned black hoods and unfurled a banner, quoting Benjamin Franklin, that read: "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." Mr Gonzales, who had been White House counsel when the eavesdropping program was approved after the Sept. Aides said he planned more public events in advance of his testimony at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the program Feb. But critics of the NSA program, who accused Mr Bush of violating the Constitution and the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by authorizing wiretaps without warrants on international communications linked to Al Qaeda suspects, said they were unimpressed by the administration's public push. David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who took part in a panel discussion by both liberal critics and conservative supporters after Mr Gonzales' speech, said that the program was "clearly" illegal in his view, and he attacked what he saw as a "blatantly political" attempt by the White House to establish a legal footing for the program. Administration officials "can say over and over and over again that it's lawful - as if the American people will believe it if you say it often enough," Mr Cole said. The question of the NSA operation's legality will probably be settled not in the court of public opinion but in a court of law. Several challenges have now been lodged in civil and criminal cases over the use of the eavesdropping program. In one, an appeal of the criminal conviction of Ali Al-Timimi on terrorism charges in Northern Virginia, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals halted appellate proceedings today because of "outstanding issues" raised by Mr Timimi's lawyers, including the possibility that the NSA program was used to monitor the fiery scholar's conversations. "This is an important step," said Jonathan Turley, a critic of the NSA program, who is representing Mr Timimi. If the appellate court agrees to send the case back to the trial court to explore the NSA issue, he said, "the government would have to establish whether Dr. Al-Timimi was intercepted under this or any other undisclosed operation, and the court could have to look at the legality of the whole operation." |
| www.ushistory.org/franklin/quotable/quote04.htm Click Ben to Continue They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. |
| www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader$605 Richard Minsky has kindly given FotB permission to mentioned his research on a famous dictum attributed to Benjamin Franklin. Someone posts wrong info online and 20,000 people copy it to other sites. When researching material for my edition, The Bill of Rights, I kept coming across this quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin: They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. htm and it is used by libertarians, neo-Nazis, conservatives, liberals, and every imaginable mainstream and fringe group. A google search on "They that can give up essential liberty" just gave me 43,900 results. The language did not sound to me at all like Franklin (one of my favorite old timers). I found an attribution of the quote on several of the sites: An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. It is excerpted from a letter from the Assembly to the Governor of Pennsylvania in 1755. The book was produced as propaganda when Franklin was in London petitioning the King to get the heirs of Wm Penn to give the colonists money to buy guns for the Indians so they could defend them against the Indians that the French were arming. I then bought a copy of the next issue of the book, Philadelphia 1812, which is attributed "by Benjamin Franklin, LLD" on the title page. I compared the paper and the type of the text to the 1759 edition, and it is identical. That is, it was printed on the same paper from the same type - all the "defects" are the same. So the edition attributed to Franklin after his death is actually the same edition printed in 1759, with a new title page (which is different paper and typography). Some research reveals that Franklin shipped 500 copies to Philadelphia on July 12th 1759, 50 for the assembly and the rest to be sold there, but they were held until 22 years after Franklin's death, then issued with a new title page. I also purchased the 10 volume Collected Works of Franklin edited by Jared Sparks, published in 1840. In volume VII there is a letter that Franklin wrote to his friend David Hume 27 September, 1760, in which he says, in response to Hume's praise of the Historical Review, that it was "not written by me, nor any part of it," except for one small section and some of the text attributed to the Assembly when he was serving there. Sparks adds a page long footnote detailing who supported the contention that Franklin was the author, and concludes that it was published under Franklin's direction and with his approval. In his autobiography, Franklin says that he was the publisher. It is now believed that Richard Jackson was the author, with Franklin doing some tweaking. The actual version, as opposed to the one presented at 44,000 websites, does have the ring of his style. A little more more research as to who was present at the Assembly November 11, 1755, the minutes of the meeting, and a copy of the original letter, should resolve that detail. Whether or not Franklin was the author, the version on thousands of websites misquotes it and makes Franklin sound illiterate. An astute typographer would notice that Franklin, a master printer, would never have allowed such an unbalanced composition, with the widow on the last line. I just didn't want the page number on my print, so I copied the laid lines from another part of the page and lined them up to match, overlaying and obscuring the page number. They can easily be altered, even to fool the eyes of those who look for obscure clues like the laid lines in the paper. |
| www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/notablequotes.htm "Laws that forbid the carrying of armsdisarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and punishment (1764). "Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak--unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. Will it be when we are totally disarmed and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power." As quoted by David Barton, Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, and Religion, 3rd ed. "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years." It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." Ronald Reagan "We will never disarm any American who seeks to protect his or her family from fear and harm." CP" Michael Bane "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury v Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137 (1803) "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Robert A Heinlein "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." Charlie Reese "The AK-47 is not a device of aggression ... I devised this machine-gun for the security of my country,"Mikhail Kalashnikov, April 1997 "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." "If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness." Justice William O Douglas, US Supreme Court "Based on the fact that 9mm casings were found at the scene, the talking head reported that the weapon was "presumably an Uzi." Of course, I suspect this person would have difficulty telling a 9mm casing from a bronzed condom." Ken Maurer "By a very conservative estimate, a hundred million people have died at the hands of their own governments in this century. Politicians never trust the people to whom they give reason to shoot them." When a brave man takes a stand, the spines of others are often stiffened." Billy Graham "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." James Bovard (1994) "Every 13 seconds in America someone uses a gun to stop a crime." Larry Craig "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." H L Mencken "Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the constitution they don't like." Alan Dershowitz "For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." We've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of government himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price." Ronald Reagan "Gun bans don't disarm criminals, gun bans attract them." Walter Mondale "Most of us could care less about owning assault weapons. However, we don't believe banning them will significantly impact crime. We fight for AK-47s today so we won't have to battle for grandpa's Model 12 (it's a classic shotgun) tomorrow." TIM ACKARMAN "If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country I never would lay down my arms, never! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. Woodrow Wilson, May 9, 1912, Address, New York Press Club. "Many people mistakenly see weapons as the source of crime rather than a reaction to it. This is rather like blaming your flat tire on the spare you carry in the trunk." Mickey Michels "Ninety-eight percent of the people in this country are decent, hardworking, honest Americans. It's the other lousy two percent that get all the publicity. Lily Tomlin "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution (1776) "One man with courage is a majority." "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation." Thomas B Reed (1886) "Police officers who continue to support the kind of gun control which is aimed at law-abiding citizens are sadly mistaken if they think it will make their jobs safer and prevent suicide. Cracking down on duck hunters and target shooters cannot and will not affect the criminal misuse of firearms in any way. Violent criminals will always be out there ready to shoot at cops, using homemade guns if necessary. Suicide is also here to stay as long as there are ropes, razors and high buildings from which to jump. It is the dreamiest of daydreams to think that if we just pass a few more laws against legitimate gun owners, we will one day be able to go out on patrol without side arms, and that suicides will become a thing of the past." Constable John A Gayder "Political correctness is just tyranny with manners." Charlton Heston "Sarah Brady tells decent citizens not to resist criminals who invade their homes, citing phony statistics to back up her dark sermon. In keeping MY home secure, I'll stick with my buckshot-loaded shotgun with Sarah Brady's picture laminated to the butt - in perfect position to give the perp a goodbye kiss after I relieve him of his affliction." Isaiah Amberay "Smart guns and safety locks aren't meant to protect children. Victor Milan "That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia, composed of the bo... |
| www.nrahq.org/transcripts/denver_close.asp Closing Remarks to Members I have been admonished not to be here, not to speak to you here. Martin Luther King, long before Hollywood found civil rights fashionable. Thirty-six years later my associates advised me not to come to Denver. At its bottom brews the simmering bile of deep, dark hatred. Hatred that's dividing our country politically, racially, economically, geographically, in every way. Whether it's political vendettas, sports brawls, corporate takeovers, or high-school gangs and cliques, the American competitive ethic has changed from "let's beat the other guy" to "let's destroy the other guy." Too many are too willing to stigmatize and demonize others for political advantage, money or ratings. John Conyers slandered three million Americans when he called the NRA merchants of death on national television, as the First Lady nodded in agreement. A hideous editorial cartoon by Mike Peters ran nationally, depicting children's dead bodies sprawled out to spell N-R-A. The countless requests we've received for media appearances are in fact summons to public floggings, where those who hate firearms will predictably don the white hat and hand us the black. This harvest of hatred is then sold as news, as entertainment, as government policy. Such hateful, divisive forces are leading us to one awful end: America's own form of Balkanization. A weakened country of rabid factions, each less free, and united only by hatred of one another. In the past ten days we've seen these brutal blows attempting to fracture America into two such camps. One camp would be the majority - people who believe our Founders guaranteed our security with the right to defend ourselves, our families and our country. The other camp would be a large minority - people who believe that we will buy security if we will just surrender these freedoms. This debate would be accurately described as those who believe in the Second Amendment, versus those who don't. But instead it is spun as those who believe in murder, versus those who don't. A struggle between the reckless and the prudent, between the dimwitted and the enlightened, between the archaic and the progressive, between inferior citizens and elitists who know what's good for society. But we're not the rustic, reckless radicals they wish for. No, the NRA spans the broadest range of American demography imaginable. Look in your mirror, your shopping mall, your church or grocery store. Millions of ordinary people and extraordinary people - war heroes, sports idols, several US presidents and yes, movie stars. But the screeching hyperbole leveled at gun owners has made these two camps so wary of each other, so hostile and confrontational and disrespectful, that too many on both sides have forgotten that we are, first, Americans. I am asking all of us, on both sides, to take one step back from the edge of that cliff. Then another step and another, however many it takes to get back to that place where we're all Americans again ... And because tragedy has been and will always be with us. Somewhere right now, evil people are scheming evil things. All of us will do every meaningful thing we can do to prevent it. But each horrible act can't become an axe for opportunists to cleave the very Bill of Rights that binds us. When an isolated, terrible event occurs, our phones ring, demanding that the NRA explain the inexplicable. They want us to play the heavy in their drama of packaged grief, to provide riveting programming to run between commercials for cars and cat food. The dirty secret of this day and age is that political gain and media ratings all too often bloom upon fresh graves. I remember a better day, when no one dared politicize or profiteer on trauma. We kept a respectful distance then, as NRA has tried to do now. But today, carnage comes with a catchy title, splashy graphics, regular promos and a reactionary package of legislation. Reporters perch like vultures on the balconies of hotels for a hundred miles around. Cameras jockey for shocking angles, as news anchors race to drench their microphones in the tears of victims. Injury, shock, grief and despair shouldn't be "brought-to-you by sponsors." It trivializes the tragedy, it abuses vulnerable people, and maybe worst of all, it makes the unspeakable seem commonplace. That is not our role in American society, and we will not be forced to play it. Our mission is to remain a steady beacon of strength and support for the Second Amendment, even if it has no other friend on the planet. We cannot let tragedy lay waste to the most rare and hard-won human right in history. Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. If you like your freedoms of speech and of religion, freedom from search and seizure, freedom of the press and of privacy, to assemble and to redress grievances, then you'd better give them that eternal bodyguard called the Second Amendment. The individual right to bear arms is freedom's insurance policy, not just for your children but for infinite generations to come. That is its singular, sacred beauty, and why we preserve it so fiercely. Only the law-abiding majority of society deserves the Second Amendment. But remarkably, the NRA is far more eager to prosecute gun abusers than are those who oppose gun ownership altogether ... The NRA also spends more and works harder than anybody in America to promote safe, responsible use of firearms. From 38,000 certified instructors training millions of police, hunters, women and youth ... to 500 law enforcement agencies promoting our Eddie Eagle gun safety program distributed to eleven million kids and counting. As long as there is a Second Amendment, evil can never conquer us. Tyranny, in any form, can never find footing within a society of law-abiding, armed, ethical people. The majesty of the Second Amendment, that our Founders so divinely captured and crafted into your birthright, guarantees that no government despot, no renegade faction of armed forces, no roving gangs of criminals, no breakdown of law and order, no massive anarchy, no force of evil or crime or oppression from within or from without, can ever rob you of the liberties that define your Americanism. And when they ask, "So indeed you would bear arms against government tyranny?" That could never happen, precisely because we have the Second Amendment." The Founding Fathers guaranteed this freedom because they knew no tyranny can ever arise among a people endowed with the right to keep and bear arms. That's why you and your descendants need never fear fascism, state-run faith, refugee camps, brainwashing, ethnic cleansing, or especially, submission to the wanton will of criminals. Now, if you disagree, that's your right and I respect that. But we will not relinquish it or be silenced about it, or be told, "Do not come here. Let's go from this place renewed in spirit and dedicated against hatred. We have work to do, hearts to heal, evil to defeat, and a country to unite. And we will again suffer tragedy almost beyond description. But when the sun sets on Denver tonight and forevermore, let it always set on we, the people ... |
| www.twelvearyannations.com/id28.htm Bush for instance says the reason we are at war with Iraq is to protect Americans from terror! Therefore we must give up a little liberty in order to have safety! Ben Franklin's I believe " Those who would give up liberty for safety deserve neither liberty or safety" We must renew in our minds who we are and our mission on earth is, We were given a mission by our Father in Heaven to live as Conquerers and Rulers! Let the ones that pretend to claim they have been fighting Judeo/Christian - Communism for 25 years as Aryans, put forth their resumes and tell the deceived: When and from whom they learned the Truth about their Heritage as White men, How much of their own earnings have they given to the cause, What they did to earn a living while fighting the "JewishTakeover". Since allegedly they are selecting a new "Leadership" and now saying the headquarters is in Pa. Having a Top security officer resign saying he joined only to be an informant. My suggestion is why not have the candidates put their resume out in the open for all the world to see? This is sort of like Joshua's command Choose whom ye will serve, BUT KNOW THEIR BACKGROUND AND TRUE FAITH! "Our Trip To the Fatherland" After my discharge in early 1946 and receiving a "Victory Button" to wear in my lapel, I wondered why it was referred to as the "ruptured duck." It wasn't long before I began to realize just how aptly named it was. Five years afterwards it began to dawn upon myself and a few others in our group of friends that most definitly we had fought the wrong people in Europe. As I was of German/English extraction and most of my friends and relatives were all essentially the same breed. My uncle and I had attended a couple Silver Shirt rallies. I recall how excited we all were at the radio reports re: the German invasion of the USSR. We cheered the remarkable advance of the Panzers, making bets on how soon they would take Moscow. In those days all we knew was Hitler hated communists, and so did my folks, as did we teenagers. I carried and delivered Liberty magazine, and around my tenth year I read Floyd Gibbons' story "The Red Napoleon" serialized in Liberty magazine. In the newsreels of the day I thrilled to the movies of the marching Germans. A few years back I myself had marched in Denver with the "Highlanders." My aunt told me about Breslau where my mother's family came from. I dreamed of going to Germany to visit, then came our entry into the war. I was working as an assistant foreman at Vultee Aircraft at the time when news came that the Department of War was looking for technicians to go to India to help bolster the British effort against Japan. So I signed up and spent one and half years in the China, Burma, India theater (10th AF). There a group of us listened to William Joyce (Lord Haw Haw) speaking from Berlin. I admit I had a terrible set of mixed emotions - my love for my Race, yet torn by my duty to my oath of allegiance. It was the Japs who attacked us, who murdered our men in the Battan Death March! It was my Race to whom I owed my allegiance not to politicians who served to enslave and destroy my people in behalf of anti-Christ world jewry. Swift that Hitler was perhaps the second witness of our Father's Life Law. In 1981 my dream to visit the Fatherland nearly came true, then the bombing of our church building. Then in March, after another decade passes, we stretched the plastic to the limit and with the wonderful hospitality of the Manfred Roeder family, my dream of dreams came true. Going through passport check I was shocked - instead of being among blond, blue-eyed people, I was in Calcutta! Everywhere there were turbaned Hindus, Pakistanis, Chinamen of every hue and shade except White, all new arrivals as our plane unloaded, except it seemed these were the majority. good looking, blue-eyed young men were routinely checking the passport photos with the person standing before him. As I stood there in line I wondered what these young Aryans thought as they looked at the flood of mud inundating their once pristine land. Our shock was eased as we took the train to the railroad station and found that the mud flood was interested only in the cities. The trains heading for Kassel were occupied by Aryans, mostly German. German trains are marvels of mass transportation - smooth, quiet and fast. Traveling throughout the countryside was a wonderful sight. The order of the gardens of the homes and flowerbeds were not marred by even one scrap of paper, a can or a plastic cup, obviously the mark of responsible people, a proud kindred folk who honored their national homeland. We Americans are in a sense rootless in comparison to our German kindred. Several hundred years before Hermann's victory over the Roman armies of Varius, the Israel tribe known as the "scepter bearer" of our Race occupied what is known as the Fatherland. I remeber well what Manfred's son Conrad stated when he visited with us at Aryan Nations in 1982: "I am a German! Thinking back in time some 60 years or so, a part of American youth shared some of the traits that were natural in the German family. Beyond all the wonderful sights we were shown by the Roeders, the most wonderful was being with the entire family, four fine young men and two lovely young ladies, each of which honor their father and mother, the products of a 2000-year-old finishing school of National ethnic Identity, each a model of physical and mental perfection according to the talents each has inherited, physically perfect and qualified in sculpture, portrait painting, music, as well as domestic arts. When observing this fine family and their many compatriots, I could not help but think of the guilt that we all share in lending our strength to smash the moral good in order to replace it with total jewish evil that is today's society in the "New World Order". |
| 209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1554499/posts history In early November, the FBI and Houston police learned that six suspected members of Mara Salvatrucha, a violent Central American gang known as MS-13, were raiding a house on Liberty Street where a rival gang had stashed drugs. MS-13 - the focus of a nationwide crackdown by FBI and federal immigration agents - has become known in recent years for home invasion robberies, drug dealing and machete attacks on its enemies. View Replies To: ChristianDefender The government does not want to tie the border drug cartels of Mexico to MS13, but it is only too obvious. The Mexican military is already operating freely with in our borders. These military operations work, and will be used in each state. View Replies To: Pro-Bush Are any of the people who took out Bonnie and Clyde, John Dillenger, and Pretty Boy Floyd still alive? We should call them out of retirement and get rid of these shiny-loafered pussies that don't know how to deal with killers. View Replies To: one more state The Mexican military is already operating freely with in our borders. If the Mexican military is doing something in favor of the drug smugglers, we're in a new warzone. View Replies "The suspects researched Walgreens throughout the Midwest and on a routine basis averaged $45,000 to $55,000 worth of stolen merchandise per day," Hanson says. View Replies To: Pro-Bush Maybe is time (probably past time), for the Feds to deputize a few million Americans, arm them (if they are not fully armed already), and send us out on search and destroy missions into these "immigrant" areas and the boarder. View Replies To: television is just wrong Yet another reason to CLOSE THE BORDER, and BUILD THAT WALL. The most pressing problem facing America today is competitiveness -- we need to get our wages down to $0, to ensure that Americans can keep on working. We need more people who are willing to do whatever it takes to help keep wages low. View Replies To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks Wouldn't YOU want easy access to a firearm if one of these sub-humans targeted you ..... That immigrant works for less than you do, and his commute was a lot longer. He's a better and more productive worker than you (since his wage goes in the denominator), and so he's a better American than you are, even before he gets his feet wet. And besides, his grandson's gonna be big-rich with all that meth inheritance money, so you'd better get rid of the attitude. View Replies To: SamAdams76 "All the criminals you mentioned committed quite a few crimes before they were eventually brought down." I'll bet these gangs have already racked up more than the old-timers. View Replies To: Pro-Bush "You must be talking about the senior Walgreens theft prevention executive." As long as he's willing to pull the trigger and can hit what he's aiming at, I don't mind if he used to work at Walgreen's. View Replies To: television is just wrong Yet another reason to CLOSE THE BORDER, and BUILD THAT WALL. When sections of this wall between the US and Mexico were recently built, crime rates on both sides of the border went way down and property values on both sides of the border went way up. View Replies To: Pro-Bush If we let them develop much farther we will find oursellves facing a real insurgency like the Black Panthers et al only dreamed of being. View Replies To: ChristianDefender Mexican soldiers and small units have been escorting drug runners across the border and have fired on American Border Patrol from inside the US. The Mexican military has been observed firing on our border patrol agents with automatic weapons on several occasions recently. This has been witnessed by at least one member of Congress that I am aware of. View Replies To: Pro-Bush MS-13 gang growing extremely dangerous, FBI says... This comes from exactly the same government that sees no need to secure the borders. View Replies To: Pro-Bush Clifford says "it would be dangerous to look at MS-13 as just another street gang." The media depicts the Triads and Russian mob as more than your regular street gang too. Come to think of it, every underworld community goes through this scrutiny. The press sensationalizes them as, "X is more than just another street gang" as if all street gangs should look like The East Side Kids/Bowery Boys films of the 1930s. Does anyone remember The Godfather where young Corleone is beginning his rise to the top with the aid of former Italian military personel and smuggled weaponry? Unlike the Italian, Jewish and Irish mobs, these yahoos apparently tattoo themselves for easy identification. View Replies To: Pro-Bush Posse Comotatus needs to be repealed at least in certain circumstances, in the cases of gangs and drug cartels terrorizing american neighborhoods.. View Replies To: HamiltonJay Posse Comotatus needs to be repealed at least in certain circumstances, in the cases of gangs and drug cartels... IIRC Gen Wes Clark sent Janet Reno armor in support of the Waco seige as there was alleged drug activity. View Replies To: Wake75 I am not worried about it, this nation survived for a good long while without Posse Comotatus at all... Entire neighborhoods of citizens living under fear and terror because the criminals are basically organized criminial militias and even though the cops know exactly who these people are, they have no way to effectively deal with.. last Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works. |
| www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39b6b6d66946.htm Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works. New York Times stated that presidential leadership and passion are necessary for enacting any new forms of gun control. The editorial pointed out that even though more than 30,000 Americans die each year by gunfire, "Americans are allowed, as in few other industrialized countries, to buy and keep an unlimited arsenal of firearms with very few restrictions and little government regulation." While voters have called for stricter, more consistent gun-control laws following recent massacres in schools, workplaces, restaurants and other public places, the editorial said that the US Congress has refused to approve modest measures aimed at curbing gun violence. "On this central public-safety issue, the two presidential candidates, Vice President Al Gore and Gov. George W Bush, have very different records and agendas that will determine whether meaningful controls are achieved in the next administration," the editorial noted. The editorial outlined several steps that the Times said can be taken to curb the rising death toll from gunfire. Among them are a law establishing nationwide licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms, including those now in circulation; a mandatory three-day waiting period to allow for more thorough background checks of non-felony records on mental-health and domestic-violence charges; and a measure to close the loophole in the law that allows criminals and other unqualified individuals to buy weapons at gun shows without having to undergo a background check. In addition, the editorial supported a nationwide one-gun-a-month purchase limit for individuals; an increase in the minimum age for possession of handguns and assault weapons from 18 to 21; and a requirement for mandatory child-safety locks on handguns. "Mr Gore has embraced many of these proposals," the editorial noted. "Mr Bush seems to be softening his pro-gun stance, but his record in Texas has been one to gladden Charlton Heston's heart." The editorial stressed that any additional forms of gun control will need to come from the person elected president in November. "Relying on Congress to take the lead means nothing will be done," the editorial stated. NRA-Clinton-Gore-Reno Justice Department -"Citizens Have No Right to Keep and Bear Arms NRA-Clinton-Gore-Reno Justice Department -"Citizens Have No Right to Keep and Bear Arms Official Position of Justice Department Nullifies 2nd Amendment What follows on the next page of this Special FAX Alert is the text of a letter from the Department of Justice to an NRA member. The letter confirms what we reported in a previous FAX Alert (No. This letter should serve as a stark reminder to all gun owners why this year's elections are so critical to the future of the Second Amendment. On Friday, you will receive a "Grassroots Election Action FAX Alert" that will outline the steps you must take in the coming weeks and months to ensure we can replace elected officials and government-appointed bureaucrats who view the Second Amendment with such hostility. We hope you will share this letter with your family, friends, and fellow firearm owners and use it to ensure that all of our supporters are fully engaged in this year's elections. U S Department of Justice Office of the Solicitor General Solicitor General Washington, DC 20530 August 22, 2000 Dear Mr (Name Deleted): Thank you for your letter dated August 11, 2000, in which you question certain statements you understand to have been made by an attorney for the United States during oral argument before the Fifth Circuit in United States v Emerson. I was not present at the oral argument you reference, and I have been informed that the court of appeals will not make the transcript or tape of the argument available to the public (or to the Department of Justice). I am informed, however, that counsel for the United States in United States v Emerson, Assistant United States Attorney William Mateja, did indeed take the position that the Second Amendment does not extend an individual right to keep and bear arms. That position is consistent with the view of the Amendment taken both by the federal appellate courts and successive Administrations. More specifically, the Supreme Court and eight United States Courts of Appeals have considered the scope of the Second Amendment and have uniformly rejected arguments that it extends firearms rights to individuals independent of the collective need to ensure a well-regulated militia. See United States v Miller, 307 US 174 (1939) (the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was to effectuate Congress's power to "call forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union," not to provide an individual right to bear arms contrary to federal law"); Ouilici v Village of Morton Grove, 695 F2d 261, 270 (7th Cir. Thus, rather than holding that the Second Amendment protects individual firearms rights, these courts have uniformly held that it precludes only federal attempts to disarm, abolish, or disable the ability to call up the organized state militia. Similarly, almost three decades ago, the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel explained: The language of the Second Amendment, when it was first presented to the Congress, makes it quite clear that it was the right of the States to maintain a militia that was being preserved, not the rights of an individual to own a gun... have viewed the Second Amendment as limited to the militia and have held that it does not create a personal right to own or use a gun . In light of the constitutional history, it must be considered as settled that there is no personal constitutional right, under the Second Amendment, to own or to use a gun. Letter from Mary C Lawton, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, to George Bush, Chairman, Republican National Committee (July 19, 1973) (citing, inter alia, Presser v Illinois, 116 US 252 (1886), and United States v Miller, 307 US 174 (1939)). There's only a short interval from the keyboards at HCI to the lips of the President and Vice President. On the site, you'll find details about comes next -- but not what comes after that. Nor will you find any details on what HCI Chair Sarah Brady says is her long-term objective: a "needs-based licensing" system, in which gun ownership is allowed only when the police determine that the would-be owner "needs" the gun. How does one get from the current Clinton/Gore/HCI program to the needs-based licensing system? In other words, what would a Gore administration push for, if it achieved the current items on the anti-gun agenda? Perhaps the best guide is the 1994 report of the White House Working Group, a secret memo which was uncovered by US News and World Report. Here's the long-term strategy: Complete Gun Licensing and Registration First, the attack on the non-existent "gun show loophole" is only a warm-up. The ultimate objective is to abolish all firearms privacy. Every firearms transfer -- including a Christmas gift from one's cousin -- would have to be routed through a federally-licensed dealer, and recorded by the federal government. A government license would also be needed to purchase ammunition. All currently owned firearms would have to be registered with the federal government, and non-registration would be a federal crime. During the Democratic primaries, Bill Bradley called for national gun registration, while Gore rejected Bradley's plan as politically unrealistic. for registration to be politically possible, it needs to be built on an existing system of licensing. Salami tactics are the essence of successful gun control. The Clinton/Gore proposal for a national ID card for handgun purchasers is a sensible "moderate" and "common-sense" step toward the goal of total licensing and registration for all guns. Politically speaking, it is best if the initial stages of gun licensing can be implemented liberally (as rifle licen... |
| www.ncc-1776.org/tle1996/le960801.html Net Policy Spotlight on Terrorism and Freedom Special to The Libertarian Enterprise I've been sitting around all week, watching the Olympics whether I like it or not, because my wife and daughter want to watch them, and I can deny them nothing. In between undeniably dramatic moments -- astonishingly courageous little girls "playing hurt", as if they were major-league football players -- I've been treated to story after story of how, due to the efforts of thousands of uniformed professional paranoids, Georgia, USA is coming to resemble Soviet Georgia. The sight of hundreds of trailers moved in to house these security "troops" is demoralizing in and of itself to anyone with a regard for a free society. At the same time, I've been a TV witness to the tragedy of TWA Flight 800 and an ignoble struggle by network fear-vampires to wring the story of its last delectable drop -- "It was a bomb!" Over it all hung the spectre of international terrorism, and the swollen, corrupt, bulbous-nosed, droopy-jowled visage of a politician (no "New Democrat" as it turns out, but just another damned fascist) grimly determined -- exactly like Richard Milhous "Guns are an Abomination" Nixon before him -- to be the last democratically elected President of the United States: William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. Clinton -- aided by his vile minions, the national "news" media -- went into raptures of ecstasy, listing all the ways that the freedom of Americans would have to be curtailed (Clinton has spoken of this before; it's a favorite theme of his) due to the heinous act he transparently hoped had been committed against TWA 800. Afterward, the round-heeled sprayheads obligingly searched out the usual street-cretins to rubberstamp Our Glorious Leader's latest Five Minute Plan, and add that they wouldn't mind at all paying extra for the "service" of having their inalienable rights violated even worse -- within the increasingly Bulgarian-style compounds American airports have become -- than they're being violated now. But there's a simpler, more effective way to prevent the criminal acts generally labelled "terrorism" that Clinton and his idiot-box doxies don't want anyone to know about. Behind virtually every terrorist attack we've ever seen or suffered, it's relatively easy to discover vicious and repeated acts of aggression against innocent individuals by the state. Preceeding the highly-publicized excesses of the Irish Republican Army, for example, we find 850 years of violent occupation by an exceptionally brutal foreign power that's managed to con the world into believing that it's civilized. Half a hundred years of Middle Eastern terror arise directly from the fact that, instead of coming to America -- the appropriate refuge for "huddled masses yearning to breathe free" -- either before or after World War II, European Jews decided to take somebody else's land away, and treat their victims the same way they themselves were treated by the Nazis. If Clinton had any real interest in reducing the threat of "domestic terrorism" (he most assuredly does not: terrorism, like war before it, has become "the health of the state") instead of ratcheting government controls tighter around the necks of 250 million Americans who've done nothing wrong, he'd immediately arrest, try, convict, and punish all of those responsible for Ruby Ridge and Waco, abolish the outlaw agencies in whose names they were perpetrated, and repeal or nullify the unconstitutional laws which provided them their justification. The trouble is, he'd have to arrest, try, convict, and punish himself. Oh, yeah, the plan: the best-kept "secret" of our overly- governmentalized age is that terrorism almost invariably reactionary; simply stop doing things -- things you shouldn't be doing anyway -- that cause terrorists to attack you and the attacks will stop. Terrorism is the price that governments -- and their hostage subjects -- pay for exercising illegitimate power. Despite pundits whose ignorance is exceeded only by their presumption (Wall Street Journal's Paul Gigot leaps immediately to mind) 20th century history demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that no further expansion of that power will do anything but make make the problem worse. Benjamin Franklin warned us, more or less, that anyone who trades liberty for safety is a fool, in part, because there ain't no such thing as safety. We're reminded by Amnesty International that more individuals have been murdered by governments in this century -- well over 100 million -- than have died in its wars (war itself being a government enterprise, as well), proving that government is a worse threat than anything it claims to protect us from. Tragedies like TWA 800 is presumed to be, represent a failure of the state -- of the very idea of the state -- and it is the state, not individuals, that must be penalized, by reducing its income, and especially the power it wields over individual lives. Americans are famous the world over for doing what was never done before. It's time we did something historically unprecedented again. Both of those were possible only because we were the first people ever to tell a King to go to hell. It's time to be the first people ever to refuse to be steam-rollered out of our liberties by jackbooted thugs claiming to protect us from people and events that don't threaten any of us nearly as much as the thugs themselves. Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author, provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate credit given. |
| www.libertyforall.net/2003/archive/sept28/price.html by Jessi Winchester, Author of From Bordello to Ballot Box "Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety will have neither liberty nor safety." Collective voices of mounting dissent on a subject so essential to American freedom may well be tuned out by millions absorbed in their own narrow little worlds. US Attorney General John Ashcroft intends for the price to be our very freedom. In my opinion, John Ashcroft is single handedly the most dangerous man in power in the history of the United States. It's clear his intent is total control and authority - at any cost. that it is his calling to impose upon the American people whatever cowardly and sneaky measures will catapult him to a position of undisputed dominance. Ashcroft has an agenda that has nothing to do with the good of the American people or our free way of life. History has shown us what mentally ill sociopathic men with evil intent have reaped upon their own fellow countrymen. That Ashcroft is succeeding in his own objective while Congress and our fellow Americans allow it, should be of primary concern to every freedom loving citizen. At a time of heightened emotion, Ashcroft capitalized on fear to ramrod the ill-named Patriot Act through Congress within days after 9-11, deliberately not allowing time for representatives to read, absorb, scrutinize, or prudently debate its contents .... The evolving picture shows we have more to fear from our own government than from foreign enemies. The American people are paying the price for the Patriot Act with alarming and far-reaching losses of personal liberties and intense invasion of our privacy and rights. What is even more disturbing is that so many Americans are simply ignoring history and allowing it to repeat itself - on our own soil. Ashcroft and his cowardly Justice Department minions even gave the Anti-terrorism Act of 2001 - the Patriot Act - a deceiving name in order to ram it through Congress with a minimum of resistance. It contained all the liberty invading bills that would never pass under rational and prudent circumstances ... or even during extreme times, had the bill been properly reviewed by lawmakers. Having succeeded at pulling the wool over America's eyes during a time of intense vulnerability, he is now stumping the country to drum up support for his increasingly unpopular directive. he won't address the common citizen, grant newspaper interviews, or answer questions. He spouts his propaganda before an already brainwashed choir - law enforcement audiences only. Ashcroft is the top law enforcement officer in the land, appointed to protect each of us, yet he won't address anyone other than his own law enforcement troops who are being trained as military units rather than as local non-threatening officers working together with their communities. That should raise a huge red flag for every one of us and evoke visions of Hitler and Stalin's actions against their own countrymen. Ashcroft is so afraid of answering questions from the every day citizen he is supposed to be protecting, that there was even an armed government helicopter hovering above protesters at the Las Vegas destination where he was addressing police agencies. Clearly, he plans to rule by intimidation and fears any dissent or criticism. A man who won't talk to anyone but his own has, without a doubt, something to hide. Even with those of his own ilk, he heavily peppers his speeches with patriotic rhetoric spun by his spinmeisters rather than talk openly about facts. gov, states facts incorrectly and reverts back to Ashcroft's position that anyone who disagrees with him or the Patriot Act is not only unpatriotic, but against America itself. He refuses to address issues covered by the Patriot Act such as the fact the mere definition of terrorism in Section 309 is so broad it could apply to a myriad of minor non-terrorist domestic offenses such as throwing a rock through a post office which could result in a life sentence. While we want offenders on all levels to be held responsible, it is unconscionable to label minor offenders as terrorists and saddle them with life sentences, especially considering there were already very stiff penalties on the books for terrorist activity prior to 9-11. Section 406 circumvents the Fourth Amendment and further expands unconstitutional asset forfeiture. It has no place in a terrorism bill since law enforcement already has the authority to seize assets. This section can only serve to further circumvent the US Constitution and increase corruption within law enforcement ranks as already demonstrated in the failed War on Drugs. In 1978, FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, was enacted. It is a secret, seven-judge court in Washington, DC that issues extremely secret wiretaps that give broad surveillance powers to the Feds. A second wiretap statute is the Wiretap Act which is used for ordinary, non-terrorist crimes. Expanding the scope of these surveillance acts under the Patriot Act allows the government to randomly invade the rights and privacy of innocent citizens who have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. Under Section 105, Feds can invade the reading habits and correspondence of the average citizen without their knowledge or permission. So much for even cursory consideration of the section of the Declaration of Independence which guarantees us not only privacy but the " ... unalienable Right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." Obviously one reason he adamantly refuses to answer questions. One side of his mouth tells his troops that although his federal law enforcement agencies already had the ability to investigate multifarious crime organizations such as the Mafia or drug cartels without the Patriot Act, the other side of his mouth insists the Feds were helpless to fight terrorists without it. Despite his conflicting dribble, the tools he needed for both were already available to him through FISA. Radically altering laws that were in place prior to 9-11, as well as implementing new ones via the Patriot Act that strip innocent Americans of their civil rights is troubling to anyone who values liberty and freedom and should not be tolerated in a free society. The fact John Ashcroft has absolutely no intent, desire, or willingness to take into consideration the best interests of the American people, is extremely frightening when one contemplates his new laws can now easily be used against any one of us for reasons the Founding Fathers could never imagine. James Madison must have foreseen people like John Ashcroft when he said, "The essence of government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse." The real apprehension regarding John Ashcroft is - can we survive him? |
| www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,47823,00.html "There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment" George Orwell, 1984. Maybe its cliche to quote Orwell when writing about privacy. Another phrase thats become almost humorous in its overuse of late is "the terrorists will have won," as in a man saying to a woman in a bar, "if you dont give me your phone number, the terrorists will have won." But with Americans giving up privacy by the fistful these days, its hard not to slip into the trite. And if we dont start getting more vigilant about protecting our liberty, the terrorists will have won. Washington, DC, has just invested $7 million in a massive citywide surveillance system. Images from 200 cameras will be observed from a command post monitoring city streets, Metro stations, monuments, federal buildings and schools. There are plans to implement private security cameras into the system too, as well as parking garages, ATMs, and traffic cameras. Theres also talk of incorporating facial recognition technology (similar to what was used at last years Super Bowl in Tampa Bay), biometrics, and even financial and medical databases into the system. Stephen J Gaffigan, head of the project, told the Washington Post, "I dont think theres really any limit on the feeds it can take. the capability to tap into not only video, but databases and systems across the region." Advertise Here With satellites now capable of reading printed pages from the skies, security cameras able to zoom in on bathroom stalls and dressing rooms, and municipalities partnering with private firms to issue traffic tickets in which the firms are paid a commission for every ticket issued, the potential for abuse abounds in whats fast becoming our voyeur society. With digital recording, images can be saved and stored in databases forever. Everyone whos ever visited an airport, bank, or hospital, or who owns an ATM card or drivers license, could very well end up with his face and his vitals in a sellable, marketable database CD-ROM. As cities and states continue to contract out monitoring services to private firms, the potential for database mixing grows. And as databases are mixed and sold, the potential for such information to fall into the hands of divorce lawyers, private investigators and voyeuristic Web site operators creeps ever higher. For a number of years now, the United Kingdom has had in place the type of surveillance system to which Washington aspires. Over 15,000 cameras dot the London subway and financial district. Three of every four localities in Britain now use crime-monitoring systems. According to the same Post article cited above, footage from some of those cameras found its way onto Internet porn sites, as well as a 1996 videotape called Caught in the Act, which depicted couples in sex acts, women undressing in their bedrooms and, yes, an "upskirt" shot of Princess Diana. Britain is also looking into a system that would equip every car sold in the country with a serialized GPS number, enabling it to be monitored and tracked by satellites. In Norway, tickets for traffic violations are tied to income levels. Cops access financial records from cell phones and issue fines that are proportional to net worth. this story, under the headline, "US to Weigh Computer Chip Implant." When it comes to our winnowing privacy, satire can barely keep pace with reality. A recent Zogby polls shows that 79 percent of Americans approve of video monitoring in public places. The Washington, DC, plan was met with only minimal resistance, from only the most vocal of civil libertarians. And, as Twight points out, supporters of national ID cards outweigh detractors. We seem to think that there must be a tradeoff security for privacy. In spite of all the cameras in Britain, crime has dropped only negligibly in the last five years, and gun violence has actually increased. Traffic cameras may cut red light running, but studies show that less invasive strategies such as lengthening yellows at intersections effect the same or better results. And theres no real evidence that turning Washington into a surveillance society will prevent another terrorist attack. By definition, "terrorists" seek to inculcate in us a fear for our safety so jarring that we alter our way of life we live in "terror." Privacy, anonymity and freedom of movement are fundamental principles of the American way of life. We are, after all, a nation originally founded and populated by people thirsty for a fresh start, a new beginning. If those principals are jeopardized, so too is our victory over terrorism. Weve become too ready to sacrifice privacy and liberty for safety and security. |
| democraticunderground.com -> www.democraticunderground.com/ The Ballad of Lynndie England May 13, 2004 Once upon a time the king came down to the village and told the villagers that there was a monster living across the sea. The king said that an army had to be assembled, to bring across the sea to kill the monster. May 13, 2004 Conservatives, clearly an important pillar of Bush support if he is to still have a chance of winning in November, seem to be going rather wobbly on the old boy. I'm talking about real conservatives here, not the Hannitys, Limbaughs and other ersatz armchair faux "conservatives" who wouldn't know real conservatism if it came up and bit them on their Goldwaters. Accountability Lapses May 12, 2004 If what really mattered to the people running this prison was getting information that would be of some use to their comrades in the field, wouldn't it have been more useful to update the change sheets regularly so they knew who was in what cell than it was to wire up some random prisoner's genitals and stand him on a box with a bag over his head? |
| CNN.com -> www.cnn.com/ About 250 prisoners freed from Abu Ghraib The United States today freed about 250 detainees from Abu Ghraib prison, site of alleged abuses that prompted global outrage and led to days of hearings on Capitol Hill. Today marks the first mass prisoner release since the abuse scandal broke several weeks ago. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had visited the prison Thursday. |