Our rights are being taken away-Patriot Act

[tannji]

OK, so now the PA is being compared to 9-11. I say that until I either see something seriously amiss, or somebody proposes a better plan, I will "wait and see". I never said I didnt do my own searching, and if you have read any of my posts in this thread, you would probably realize that I dont appear to be the type to speak before giving the subject some serious thought, as well as "googling" if necessary. The difference between my posts and some of the others is that I dont generally need to google, except for an embarrassing tendency to mis-spell.... 8) That probably comes off as cocky or conceited.... SHRUG. I read a lot, and I dont watch a lot of TV. That puts me into a different group than about 90% of the people I have met. I am not in the habit of letting a talking head or media outlet do my thinking for me, and I look for weakness even in the public personae I somewhat respect, just to assure myself that I am TRYING to remain objective.

As for Arab nationals or anyone else losing due process, thats too bad, and I apologize.... but if this process grabs some terrorists on our soil, before another 9-11 of whatever proportion, that is justified from my point of view. You have a choice. Let a terrorist violate your rights, or let the government.

I just realized something that has been bothering me for a while now. Everyone keeps complaining about the losses of freedom, or the lack of due process, or establishing probable cause, ect.... and I just couldnt understand why they couldnt see why this was to be expected and to a certain extent, tolerated. Here is the problem in a nutshell. Unlike 90% of the rest of the world, not only we a young country with comparatively little history, but we are a large, relatively isolated country, with no major threats on our borders. We have never been significantly invaded, or even attacked on our own soil. War has always been "over there", across oceans, and in different timezones. War was always something civilized by distance, and by declaration and ratification in congress. It has never been personal, dirty, and in your face, until recently, with TV, and even more so with the internet. Even with graphical representation, war is still distant and impersonal, unless you were there, fighting it. Thus, americans can not really truly relate terrorism to war, and accept the reality that we ARE at war, and to some extent, that war is RIGHT HERE. NO!!!! It is not fair! It IS a violation of rights! It is Ugly, it IS painfull, threatening, and DOES affect people who are INNOCENT! In war, people DIE from Friendly Fire!! You get BAD or Misinterpreted Intel! Your leaders make mistakes! Politicians Screw it up! People you care about WILL be hurt or Inconvenienced!!!

On the bright side, at least you CAN bitch about it, and not only have decent prospects for tomorrow, but not get shot for bitching about it. You might want to be careful about WHO you bitch TO..... but then, some of us believed that even before this got personal.

Sorry for shouting, I will go back to being lazy now.

 

PS... I didnt ask for proof for my own edification, I asked because I was fairly certain that most of the people bitching were only bitching about something that felt like it should be bitched about, and not only couldnt refer to anything relevant, but couldnt post a viable alternative to accompany their criticism.

[JMortensen]

PS... I didnt ask for proof for my own edification, I asked because I was fairly certain that most of the people bitching were only bitching about something that felt like it should be bitched about, and not only couldnt refer to anything relevant, but couldnt post a viable alternative to accompany their criticism.

 

I don't understand why you have such a holier-than-thou attitude tannji. If I ever google in a post it's because I was taught to BACK UP MY FACTS.

 

I'm bitching about a POTENTIAL problem. If it were an ACTUAL problem then I wouldn't just be bitching. I'd be voting against anyone who supported the act, and if that failed...

 

I've stated, and I think Pop has also stated that we back Bush in the election. Clearly our opposition to the Patriot Act is tempered with some other thought that leads us to believe that Bush is the right man for the job in spite of the Patriot Act. It seems equally clear to me that you would back whatever the president has to say.

 

You want to something to prove? How about proving to Pop and me that the Patriot Act WON'T be abused. If you can prove that, then I'll happily sign on in support of it. Good luck with that one.

[Guest Phil1934]

Looks like our minor scandal of background checks on county commmission candidates, new reporters, one councilman, and a couple police officers is over. The paper announced the computer software generated the requests on its own! A couple years ago they began fingerprinting for driver's licenses and this information would only be used by the Dept. of Motor Vehicles and not tie into the state crime records. Then a couple weeks later they announced they caught a fugitive drug dealer when he applied for a license with a fake name and the prints showed his true identity! And then they said they would not tie these records into a southeastern computer, (either by vote or Governor's order, I think the latter), and then announced a few weeks later that they had accidentally transferred millions of records. Will power be abused? Absolutely, especially if no one is ever held accountable. But I agree, we've killed this horse.

[Pop N Wood]

OK, so now the PA is being compared to 9-11.

 

Nothing of the kind. I said saying “lets wait and see if it becomes a problem†reminds me of people’s attitudes prior to 9/11. Huge difference.

 

As for Arab nationals or anyone else losing due process, thats too bad, and I apologize....

 

It is not your place to apologize. And it is neither of our places to decide which ethnic groups should be protected by the constitution and which are not. Prosecute the guilty but don’t persecute the innocent.

 

but if this process grabs some terrorists on our soil, before another 9-11 of whatever proportion, that is justified from my point of view.

 

“And if outlawing guns prevents even one gun death….â€

 

You have a choice. Let a terrorist violate your rights, or let the government.

 

Maybe those are your choices. My choice is to not let either one violate me or my rights. We are strong enough to do both. But not if the people are running scared or have a “win at all costs†attitude.

 

I know I can get rather abrasive, but I am honestly not attacking you. Really.

 

Before this thread I had a general mistrust for the PA. Probably more because of the circumstances surrounding it’s passage and the blatantly political name. This thread has opened my eyes to a lot of things. I read extensively and I see a change in this country that I am not happy with. Some have to do with the PA, but most of my consternation comes from people’s attitudes toward the whole affair. I guess I am a product of the 60's and 70's and as such have a basic mistrust of what I have seen the government do during that era. The government wasn't too honest about the happening in Vietnam. What makes you think they are any more trust worthy now?

 

Want my idea of a viable alternative? Dump the portion of the PA that allows search warrants without proving probable cause. Turn over investigations of PA abuses to an independent panel. Make public the procedures for putting people on no fly lists, then provide an independent panel of judges with established procedures to allow people to challenge it (may not be part of the PA, but something that is needed). I am sure there are more, but I am far from an expert. As Reagan said, trust but verify.

[tannji]

I like most of your alternatives..... but I doubt you are anymore a product of the 60's and 70's than I am. In my experience, the 60's and 70 were not all that different than today. The same number of poorly read people spouting opinions based on idealism, the same amount of selfishness taking priority over selflessness. I am of the opinion that the 60's did far more harm to our country than help. It was very distructive to things that are the core of our nation's strength, like values over freedom. (back then freedom meant sex and drugs to the vast majority, so dont misinterpret me there) I WAS a hippie... but then, the average joe doesnt even know what a real hippie was. My parents were in the "active minority", people who tried to make a difference by actions, and left the talking and posturing to others, for the most part. We did things like start functional communes, where the goal was self support and organic lifestyle, in its true meaning. (Didnt leave a lot of time for demonstrations or sit-ins... tho there was some of that as well.) We started food Co-Ops, several of which are still very much alive to this day. There was a lot of potential good going on, a lot of effort for what people valued. Unfortunately.... there were too many talkers and not enough doers. Too many Idealists who took the path they considered the "most right" (or at least talked a good show about it) instead of realists taking the considered, practical path, and valuing their ideals. Not all that different from what we have going on today, to tell you the truth.

 

Anyhow, I may use an Arab as a practical and likely example of the PA in action (as you did) but it doesnt mean I am biased in applying constitutional protection. I would feel the same if it was my neighbor or my friend. Granted, it would be more immediate to me, but I would have the opportunity do try and do something about it. Unlike the majority of members here, I deal with the situation (Arabs in the United states) on a daily and personal basis, as my GF's ex-husband is an Arab Pilot. I hear both sides of the story from him, and more telling, have observed his slightly anti-american attitudes take a huge swing in direction recently. He has had to deal with bias personally... but he is more concerned with the bias he experiences in Syria than he is here. You want police state or groundless prosecution.... he is serving in the Syrian National Airline.... at about 5% of his usual pay..... to keep his father out of jail, and their estate out of government possession. He was investigated very closely right after 9-11 for obvious reasons.... and I was interviewed by the FBI several times. Crazy thing is, he supports the government's actions 100%, but thinks they are being pussies about the whole deal... go figure.

[johnc]

How about proving to Pop and me that the Patriot Act WON'T be abused.

 

That's often referred to as the "UFO Defense"; I say that UFO's exist and you must prove me wrong! A statement like that is not falsifiable so it cannot be proven.

[johnc]

I'm going to start calling this when I see it:

 

Chewbacca Defense

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

 

The Chewbacca Defense is a satirical term for any legal strategy that seeks to overwhelm its audience with nonsensical arguments and thus confuse them into failing to take account of the opposing arguments and, ultimately, to reject them. It is thus a kind of logical fallacy, specifically a red herring fallacy and non sequitur similar to argumentum ad nauseam.

 

The term originated in the animated television series South Park. In its typically poignant style, the show satirized real-life lawyer Johnnie Cochran's closing argument defending O.J. Simpson in his murder trial.

 

In the South Park episode, Johnnie Cochran repeatedly wins legal cases by arguing that:

 

"The Star Wars character Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor, which doesn't make sense; Talking about Chewbacca in a totally unrelated trial doesn't make sense; None of this makes any sense; and If it doesn't make sense, the jury must acquit."

 

This parodies Cochran's defense in the O.J. Simpson trial, which many people believe was intended to distract the jury from damning evidence by overwhelming them with irrelevant information. The parody also refers to a famous line from Cochran's closing statement, in which he repeatedly proclaimed, "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit", referring to a glove that was a piece of evidence in the trial. The glove was supposedly worn by the murderer as he committed the crimes, yet was too small for Simpson's hand (the prosecution claimed it had shrunk after being soaked in the victims' blood).

 

The term Chewbacca Defense was first used in the South Park episode "Chef Aid," which premiered on October 7, 1998 as the fourteenth episode of the second season.

 

In the episode, Johnnie Cochran defends a "major record company" against copyright violation charges by regular series character Chef—that the (fictional) song "Stinky Britches" by Alanis Morissette was in fact originally written by Chef, a claim that the story makes obvious to the viewer and is supported by reasonable evidence.

 

In response, Cochran resorts to his "famous" Chewbacca Defense, which he "used during the Simpson trial", according to another South Park character.

 

"Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, Chef's attorney would certainly want you to believe that his client wrote "Stinky Britches" ten years ago. And they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself!

 

But ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider: This [pointing to a picture of Chewbacca] is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee—an eight foot tall Wookiee—want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!

 

But more important, you have to ask yourself, what does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense!

 

Look at me, I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense!

 

And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense? No!

 

Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense.

 

If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests."

 

In the South Park episode, Cochran's use of this defense is so successful that the jury finds Chef guilty of "harassing a major record label" and sets his punishment as either a two million dollar fine to be paid within twenty-four hours or, failing that, eight million years in prison.

 

Ultimately a "Chef Aid" benefit concert is organized to raise money for Chef to hire Johnie Cochran for his defense. The concert (a parody of Live Aid) features his old showbiz friends—Elton John, Ozzy Osbourne, and others (the real-life artists recorded songs for the episode and accompanying album). In the concert Johnnie Cochran experiences a change of heart, decides to represent Chef for free and again successfully uses the Chewbacca defense, this time to acquit Chef and make the record company acknowledge his authorship.

 

"Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, you must now decide whether to reverse the decision for my client Chef. I know he seems guilty, but ladies and gentlemen... [pulling down a diagram of Chewbacca] This is Chewbacca. Now think about that for one moment—that does not make sense. Why am I talking about Chewbacca when a man's life is on the line? Why? I'll tell you why: I don't know.

It does not make sense. If Chewbacca does not make sense, you must acquit!

 

[pulling a monkey out of his pocket] Here, look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey! [one juror's head explodes]"

[JMortensen]

Maybe it is the UFO Defense. But surely we're not talking about UFO's here. We're talking about giving a govt that has already abused its power in the past powers that the Constitution guarantees that they will not have. That's a little different than some flashing lights in the sky.

 

I'm sure there is a name for the "well you come up with something better" argument that is equally BS. I wasn't arguing that there wouldn't be better intelligence as a result of the PA, I was arguing that it violates my rights.

 

If you or tannji don't like that argument then I refer you back to the possibility that the whole thing never would have happened if law abiding citizens had the right to carry weapons on planes.

 

The Chewbacca thing was hilarious, BTW. I loved that episode.

 

EDIT--Hey, in reading the Chewbacca defense, I think tannji is using it. I'm not arguing for better or worse intelligence. I'm arguing for my rights not to be infringed upon. Thanks for the help there John. I knew that he was making a ridiculous argument so I responded in kind (the wrong thing to do) and then you came to the rescue with some logic supporting my point. Appreciate that.

[Kevin Shasteen]

my goodness...I was certain this thread would've died off at page 11. I come back in almost two days and it is growing astronaumically. Great thread and I am glad we are having it.

 

 

1) No' date=' 11 more pages not needed, unless you are looking for "wiggle room". I want definitions.., One post needed.., We can talk about the real issues a whole dungload better if we are all speaking the same "vernacular".., [/quote']

 

Wordiq.com defines:

 

New World Order: has been used several times in recent history and refers to the dramatic change in world politics thought and the balance of power.

 

2) Oh, and let's debate the evolution of human interaction and the origin of absolute power elsewhere, we have rabbits on the run, and dogs that hunt, right here, right now.

 

.., again from Wordiq.com

 

Globalism: is the apotheosis of the British doctrine of Free Trade. Under globalism, the concept of national sovereignty with respect to economic policy is effectively banned, and this ban is enforced by international agencies such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Proponents of globalsim argue that it is necessary to eliminate protectionism because it is an impediment to greater economic efficiencies, which may be realized through the unrestricted movement of capital. Opponents of globalism hold that it is simply a disguised form of colonialism, and that rather than seeking to improve the economic performance of most of the world, it is designed to retard and stifle it, to maintain the Third World, in particular, as a vast reserve of cheap labor and cheap raw materials.

 

Tanji,

 

Glad to see you demanding specifics. If the rest of the world made such a demand on their politicians, religious leaders, and economic leaders, then we would not be in the mess we currently find ourselves in.

 

Dont believe simply all the disinformation out there that those who believe in Globalism and NWO do exist that they are "Cultish"...that is a Pchy-Op's of its own. Notice that not one defintion from Wordiq.com connected the political defintions to "Ufo abducted-anal probed wacko's".

 

The world of globalism and economics is political..not UFO'ish and should not be connected to that group.

 

Coming from a cult I can understand why you would question anyone who has an opinion on politics and economics that involves a religious belief...such as I who base all my beliefs in God and the bible (not new age nor new translations...but the KJV and both Hebrew/Greek concordance for proper translations.

 

I would counter that your "lack of faith" is not a lack of faith - just a limited one..BTW: in that KJB, Christ commanded us to search for the truth and if we did we would find the truth and the truth would set us free.

 

You believe in the wind but could not, if your life depended upon on it, put the wind in a mason jar and prove to me what the wind looks like. Yet you still have faith, perception, to believe that it is the wind that moves the leaves and branches on a tree as well as blows your hair on a windy day.

 

Too many people are in search for answers these days - but dont find it because they are fearful of what others may label them.

 

If you remove my belief in God and the KJV bible - then I too could understand why it is hard to believe that the world is acting crazy and would scratch my head in amazement of why "Things Just Happen".

 

I dont want to make this into a religious thread, but the bible in Daniel speaks about Neberkenezzar's (sp?) statue, as well as Daniel's visions. Both the statue and Daniels visions outline the kindoms that would take place from that moment in time, from Babylon, to the end of time..., and this doesnt begin to scratch the surface of John's visions which speaks specifically of the kingdom that would rule in those end days... if you were one that believed in such things that is.

 

So yea, I believe in such things and that is why I dont find it hard to believe where we are politically, economically, and religiously to this day.

[Pop N Wood]

One other thing for all of you people who trust the current administration to not abuse their new found powers. Will you have the same level of trust should Hillary get elected 4 years from now?

[tannji]

I am arguing your rights are going to be infringed on either way, but the government wont kill you in doing so. If there had been civilians on the planes 9-11 wouldnt have happened??? WTF You REALLY want guns on planes in civilians hands? LMAO!!! Tell ya what, I lived in Denver while Columbine was going on.... (in fact, my room mate was one of the National guard assigned to Columbine security) I'm telling ya, if the students had been given concealed carry permits, Columbine would never have happened... not to mention my kids Right to go to school without going thru a metal detector would still be intact. One step further: If the students at Kent State had weapons, there would never have been a massacre in the first place..... Hell, if the NCAA and Arena's would just allow weapons, Bobby Knight would never have thrown the chair..... By your logic, gas should be $1.00 per gallon right now..... except that we didnt go to Iraq to take over their oil.... (so thats another right the government didnt infringe on when they had the chance)

This isnt about whether or not your rights could get violated.... they already can and do. Its about what is more important: your right to surf porn in privacy, or evade taxes, or whatever.... or the rights of the families of 9-11 to expect a more aggressive defense. I asked before, and I ask again.... we know how you feel about your rights, how do you think REAL victims feel about your rights? You are making the assumption that our government not only will invade you, they will frame you... and that they will get away with it, because I dont care. I do care... I hope your rights never get intruded upon. But given the choice, I will vote to lose a few rights, or some of my privacy (temporarily) over allowing another 9-11. I would so dearly love to see you face to face with a mother or father, or even a CHILD of a DEAD american, telling them that your rights are more important than the rights of their deceased loved one. You so easily state your willingness to preserve privacy or rights over the PA and its INTENT.... tell us about your experiences where your LIFE was on the line, so we can attempt to believe your opinions are credible, and would hold true if the fan was blowing excrement in your face, instead of others.

 

I base my "apathy" about the goverment infringing upon our rights on history, not emotion or worst case assumptions about both capability and intent. Rights Will get infringed upon. They have ever since the origin of the concept of rights, and before. What kind of life have you lived that you expect perfection out of government and bureaucracy? I do not know of another nation or political system in history that has a better track record than ours, but you would endanger the body over the rights of one.... that opinion is of course your right, but we would live in a more dangerous place if the country or the world was run that way. Fortunately, at the earliest possible opportunity, the PA will be done away with.... not because it will kill our tradition of rights and liberties, but because there will come a time when it is no longer needed, and some liberal candidate will seize the moment to use it as a campaign cornerstone. Until then, you will enjoy its protection, while enduring vanishingly small odds of ever being violated by its brutal, primitive execution.

[JMortensen]

Stick to your guns Pop, and I'll stick to mine.

 

This kind of violation of our rights isn't acceptable in any administration. It's not about intelligence. It's about our "inalienable" rights. Remember those???

[Guest freedomfighter]

One last post:

 

http://www.noogenesis.com/pineapple/blind_men_elephant.html

 

And oh baby baby it's a wild world. Seems pertinent

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6067570/

 

For me' date=' the most disheartening thing about this whole thread is the number of people who feel the way to protect our freedoms is to willing give them up for someone else to keep. Maybe I am over simplifing things, but perhaps we should be discussing the meanings of freedom vs. security.[/quote']

 

Hey Pop,

What a cute little poem. IT perfectly describes what I was thinking as I was reviewing your other posts. So when it comes to your personal position on taxes, deficit spending, and the Patriot Act... I can certainly guess which part of the elephant you grabbed... did she like it?

 

 

Oh, and like I said in another post somewhere, we're NOT giving up our freedoms. We still have the complete and total freedom of kicking any political leader's proverbial ass the second "We the People" deem it necessary. ITS A TOOL. Like a nuke, as made CLEARLY EVIDENT over the last few years since it's inception, it happens to be a very successful tool.

[JMortensen]

I started to go through your argument point by point again tannji, but it's just ridiculous. You are making the same "what would you tell the victims" and "what if you were a victim" arguments that are PURELY EMOTIONAL. That is not the way to deal with this difficult situation.

 

I will say this: yes, I think I should be allowed to carry a gun on a plane, and I do wonder what would have happened at Columbine had the TEACHERS been carrying concealed weapons. I'm not suggesting that 15 year old kids should be allowed to carry weapons.

 

I've not had my rights infringed upon except when I was accused of "cruising" when I was a teenager. That made me angry then too, BTW. No government agency has tried to kill me or arrest me without cause.

 

Fortunately, at the earliest possible opportunity, the PA will be done away with.... not because it will kill our tradition of rights and liberties, but because there will come a time when it is no longer needed, and some liberal candidate will seize the moment to use it as a campaign cornerstone. Until then, you will enjoy its protection, while enduring vanishingly small odds of ever being violated by its brutal, primitive execution.

 

Your position, John's position, Mike's position continues to do NOTHING but come up with rationalizations for curtailing the INALIENABLE RIGHTS of 290,000,000 people. That is unacceptable.

 

Mine is a fundamental position, and is not going to change based on the circumstance.

[Pop N Wood]

You REALLY want guns on planes in civilians hands?

 

I have absolutely no idea where that came from. Your words' date=' definitely not mine.

 

I would so dearly love to see you face to face with a mother or father, or even a CHILD of a DEAD american, telling them that your rights are more important than the rights of their deceased loved one.

 

You sound like a campaign manager for John Kerry. Either fear mongering or the Chewbacca defense.

 

It is because I don’t want to see any dead Americans (or Iraqis for that matter) that I take the stand I do. Like I said, some things you do as a matter of principle.

 

You so easily state your willingness to preserve privacy or rights over the PA and its INTENT.... tell us about your experiences where your LIFE was on the line' date=' so we can attempt to believe your opinions are credible, and would hold true if the fan was blowing excrement in your face, instead of others.

[/quote']

 

Once again, no idea where that comes from or the relevance. My opinions are only as credible as logic supporting them. My life experiences have very little to do with whether the logic is valid or not.

 

What kind of life have you lived that you expect perfection out of government and bureaucracy?

 

Are we reading the same posts? I say we need a system of checks and balances to keep the government honest. How is that expecting perfection?

 

 

I do not know of another nation or political system in history that has a better track record than ours' date=' [/quote']

 

And I like to think it is because of all of those who have gone before us who refused to cut corners. That is what I am saying we need to do. Look at the big picture and don’t forget where we came from.

 

 

Hey Pop' date='

What a cute little poem. IT perfectly describes what I was thinking as I was reviewing your other posts. So when it comes to your personal position on taxes, deficit spending, and the Patriot Act... I can certainly guess which part of the elephant you grabbed... did she like it?

[/quote']

 

You know I was kind of hoping you had gotten banned. Maybe my head is just spinning from your high IQ, but the way you present yourself has all of the credibility of the typical 17 year old keyboard warrior.

 

This thread has turned too personal. Guess I need to step away from it.

 

Once again, my apologies to any I have inconvenienced.

[JMortensen]

Agreed.

[Kevin Shasteen]

The cycle of civilization is:

1) Freedom

2) Prosparity

3) Decadence

4) Slavery...then the cycle repeats itslef.

 

everything I am writing here addresses authority and IMHO I attempt to make a point why our politicians dont hede our demands (long so bear w/me) as I understand it.

 

Regarding the PA and "our" govt's past tresspasses on "we the people", let us take a trip down memory lane.

 

When the revolutionary war ended, the colonies were allegedly free. What people fail to realize is pre, during, and post revolutionary war - there were multiple types of people walking around. There were those involved in Govt contracts, there were those involved in individual contracts, and there were those involved in no contracts...(the social contract). BTW: once you understand the jurisdictional issues between Federal, State, and Individual you will then understand that neither the State nor the Federal have any jurisdiction over the Individual that is not involved in Starte or Federal Business (Contracts). A good question to ask yourself is, "What contracts am I signing these days that place me in the State or Federal jurisdictions?"

 

So, upon the end of this war, with these three classes of folks involved, what do you do w/them? Eventually the constitution was written which put forth limitations on said Govt contracts and Colonial (now State) contracts. This constitution did not address those that were not involved in bartering (the social contract)...so the Bill of Rights was passes. The Bill of Rights does not give you any rights, rather it is a limitation on how the Federal Zone reps can interact w/the "baterers". And so the people were happy...they new their new found freedom would not be incroached: why would they fear encroachment....after all - they had freedom of speech, freedom to Keep & Bear Arms, no theft of property or person w/out a warrant ect, ect. The country prospered (protectionism)

 

Now zoom up to the Civil War period just prior to the souther State reps walking out on congress. Most people equate the Civil War to "Freedom from Slavery". Yet freedom from slavery was not top on the list.., it was 4th or 5th somewhere on the list...and yes, Freedom from slavery is good and it needed to happen. But what of the other issues that superceded slavery on the list? Such as Individual Rights, and State

s Rights.

 

Post Civil War brought us the 14 Amendment which alloted for a US citizen to reside in the sovereign state but was still subject to the rules and regulations of the US (Federal Zone..as in "INTERNAL"). Most people new then that they were not US Citizens...they knew they were State Citizens...yet this knowledge is lost to 99.9999% of most folks today. Prior to the Civil War - there were next to ZERO US Citizens. We, to this day have not returned to "State Citizenry"...so there is one area of concern that has changed due to a War.

 

Something else most peopld do not understand, and that is the IRS and the income tax. I wasnt going to mention it - due to it also being a hot topic but Tannji mentioned the IRS, so here goes. The income tax was a "War Time Tax" that the writers of the constitution alloted for. It is a legit tax w/its legit measures for applying said tax...during war. The legit manner in which it is applied is as a tax that is apportioned amongst the states. So if one state has more people in it, then it pays more of the tax than the state next to them that has a smaller population - that is apportionment. Once the Civil War was over, the tax would be done away with w/in a two year period not to exceed two years...which it was. Yet move on to the early 1900's where the Income Tax Act of 1913 was passed. This is an indirect tax that is being applied as a direct tax. The states nor the feds can force this tax, legally, on you or I - so it is called a voluntary tax...but just try and volunteer to not pay it. We all know we have to pay this "Voluntary" tax or we go to jail. So much for being voluntary. And I know there are people here who do not understand the difference between Direct and Indirect taxation...so spare me the nay-sayers. The point is that we have this taxation to this day that was first applied during the Civil War..so we have not returned to the pre Civil War era where said tax was not being applied.

 

Now Zoom to the 1930's where FDR confiscated the gold. FDR, as the President did not have the authority to speak for the "Non US Citizens", he only had the authority to speak to the "Internal"...as in internal to the Federal Zone as an administrator, employees. Yet due to people's ignorance...all for the "War Effort", the lemmings marched to the local banks and handed over their gold. EVEN THOUGH, ARTICAL 1, SECTION 10 SAYS.., NO STATE SHALL MAKE..., ANYTHING BUT GOLD AND SILVER 'COIN' A TENDER IN PAYMENT OF DEBTS......yet here we are to this day using fiat paper notes (federal reserve notes) instead of Gold and Silver to pay our debts. Simply one more example of not returning to a pre war state...even though Allen Greenspan in his 1966 treaties on Money and the 1920's market crash wrote, "In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation." Still, here we are to this day on a debt based federal reserve paper note system paying our debts w/paper inflationary notes.

 

So if the constitution says we can not pay our debts w/out the use of Gold or Silver coin...why are we paying our debts w/paper? This seems like a huge contradiction to the constitution.

 

IMHO...not just mine but many others, that the amendments to the constitution equate to a Federal state overlaid ontop of the sovereign states: see Howard v. Commissioners of Sinking Fund, 344 U.S. 624, 73 S.Ct. 465 that said, "There has been created a fictinal Federal state within a state" or Schwartz v. O'Hara TP. School Dist., 100 A.2d. 621, 625, 375 Pa. which also identifies a state within a state.

 

How can they do this you ask: it is again IMHO, being done thru "Commerce". The constitutional writers did cede the "right" to regulate commerce - both inter and intra-state commerce. Everything we do in our lives is being regulated through commerce. So if you sign a document, which we all have, giving testimony to being a US citizen - then we have agreed to be a Federal (internal) Employee and are subject to its rules and regulations...this is called an implied benefit. If you or I accept any benefit, it is then implied that we hace access to all other benefits - even if we dont request access to said benefits we do have access to them...and therefore we are subject to said benefits.

 

So when we sign into a US citizenship contract we have then stepped outside of our "god given rights spoken about in the preamble to the constitution where it states certain rights are unalienable" and stepped straight into a Contract that has contractual obligations....hence a Court of Equity will hear and decide any contractual disputes. This means you can not claim "Common Law Rights" in a court of Equity if you have given testimony in one or more US contracts that you are a US Citizen.

 

People always like to claim their "Constitutional Rights" but they never stop to think about how many times they have given testimony to being a "US citizen". US citizens dont have rights...they only have benefits. Benefits can be altered or taken away any time yet rights can not be taken away...unless you have willfully, knowingly, intentionally signed into a contract: simply because the issue - when a breach in the contract arrises, isnt about "Rights", rather it is about contractual obligations.

 

So, when you and I are confronted by some Dept. of Homeland Security "employee", both you & I are obliged, due to contractual obligation....from all our US citizenship contracts we previously had signed into, to answer any of their questions. After all - they, through the contracts, are no longer our servant and have now become our boss.

 

This is the flip-flop in authority you will never see or hear about in a shcool class, as Tannji put it, civic 101. They dont understand it, most people dont understand it and I didnt understand it till after about 10 years of personal research...the internet and to make Tannji feel better, yes even the library (no googling )

 

So when I understand how politics and their politicians no longer serve the peope, accept w/the perception of being a servant - which only happens during an election year, then I get that sinking feeling that we are about to move into unchartered waters and whatever rights and freedoms still exit will soon be further done away with.

 

Can anyone confirm this? I heard on a radio program that the PA DOES NOT have a sunset clause. I would really like some confirmed facts regarding the sunset clause - not just some guy talking on the radio that doesnt substantiate that statement.

 

Phil,

 

Your answer about Allen Greenspan being the Economic authority - what about his bosses? Who does Allen Greenspan answer to? Keep climbing the economic ladder - dont stop at Allen Greenspan.

 

Kevin,

(Yea,Still an Inliner)

[Guest freedomfighter]

You know I was kind of hoping you had gotten banned. Maybe my head is just spinning from your high IQ' date=' but the way you present yourself has all of the credibility of the typical 17 year old keyboard warrior.

 

This thread has turned too personal. Guess I need to step away from it.

 

Once again, my apologies to any I have inconvenienced.[/quote']

 

I find the irony of you wanting me banned for voicing my opinion to be incredibly thick... especially considering your position on this topic. Did you seriously think I would role over and wet on myself? I spend far to much time and effort staying "in the know" in the effort to protect my precious family and the freedom we love so much... to ignore an attempt to categorize me as Blind and Dumb...

I completely respect your right to your opinion, whether I agree with it or not... and would proudly stand by YOUR side to fight for our freedom.

 

I'm a little slow on some of my responses because I'm using this wonderful sight to gather massive information on all of your projects and past experiences. As FUN as this thread is, searching and reading through thousands of other Z posts is really time consuming!

[tannji]

lol! I just deleted a time consuming post in the interest of not pissing any more people off. Everyone has their opinions, and their right to them. I thoroughly enjoyed the post on the historical progression from state citizen to federal, and it was for the most part very well done. 99% of our fellow citizens wouldnt understand it, and most of them wouldnt care. I do not feel that I better or worse off regardless of my citizen status.... I am what I am, and I deal with that. The country is what it is, and I deal with that as well. It is noble and noteworthy to be concerned about our rights.... but I prioritize my anxieties based on different criteria, obviously. We have different situations now than we did in Roosevelt's or Lincoln's day, so I expect the conditions to be different. I pay attention to my quality of life, and proceed accordingly. I do look towards the future, and what may be coming. I agitate about what I think needs attention, and so on and so forth. We live to a higher standard and have more liberties than any other country on earth. There are penalties to pay for that. I am just comfortable with our traditions, and those traditions include some tough times, as well as good. I do not anticipate the gestapo tactics that some here do. Time will tell.

[wheelman]

Kevin,

Here is a quote from the April 8th Sierra Times web news paper regarding the sunset clause of the Patriot Act.

 

The Times reports that the move is likely to touch off strong objections from many Democrats and even some Republicans in Congress who believe that the Patriot Act, as the legislation that grew out of the attacks is known, has already given the government too much power to spy on Americans. If you recall, it was only passed with the agreement there would be a sunset clause inserted, where Congress would have to review the act in 2005.

 

It is talking about a proposal to make the portions of the Patriot Act that are due to expire in 2005 permanent. I didn't research the whole subject, please forgive me, but it is mentioned that the provisions that will expire are directly related to the expand wire-tapping and servellience powers. I believe Senator Orin Hatch (R-Utah) had proposed a bill that would make the provisions permanent and it was to have been introduced to congress on Sept 11th. Now either it was not introduced or the media didn't cover it because I don't remember hearing anything about it.

 

Just goes to show that you can't always believe everything you hear on the radio or TV or read.

 

Now that I've read this article it leads me to believe this thread has been a lot of noise about nothing. It appears the parts of the Act that are most objectionable will expire soon unless congress renews them. My guess is that a sunset clause will be inserted into any legislation that modifies or extends the original law. Who'd of thunk it, a built in self-destruct to a law that curtails some of our rights!

 

Wheelman