How can we bring world peace? Learn about the Ron Paul Tea Party, Dec. 16, 2007
70% of the people oppose the war in Iraq, but only one of the 11 candidates for President of the USA oppose the war. The rest are even discussing expanding the war into Iran.
At first we went to war because we said that Saddam had weapons mass destruction. We did not find any weapons of mass destruction.
Then they said that we had to remove Saddam Hussein.
We removed Saddam Hussein, but we are still in the war.
Then they said that we are there to "defend freedom".
Are we "defending freedom" in Iraq?
As we defend freedom in Iraq,
we might want to ask exactly WHICH FREEDOMS are we defending?
Are we defending the right of habeas corpus?
Are we defending the freedom to mention our religious ideals on any public property?
Are we defending the freedom to travel without going through police checkpoints?
Are we defending the freedom to criticize the President, or other government officials, without being in violation of the Patriot Act, and considered a possible terrorist?
Are we defending the freedom to mention the Constitution in any district court without being held in contempt?
Are we defending the freedom to discipline children, if they get out of line,
without having them kidnapped by the Department of Social Services,
and held hostage until we receive approved psychological therapy, and are deemed acceptable?
Are we defending our own borders against illegal aliens?
Are we defending the freedom to talk about, or publicly support, any candidate, an election is occurring in your locality within the next 90 days?
Are we defending the freedom to demand a search warrant
if an officer asks to search your vehicle at the "seat belt" checks, in accordance with our fourth amendment rights?
Are we defending the freedom to object when the searching officer will not help you pick up your belongings that he has strewn all over the highway as he searched our vehicle, without being charged with "obstructing justice"?
Are we defending the freedom to keep and bear arms, as provided in the Second Amendment?
Are we defending the freedom to free from warrantless searches at homes or businesses? If a government bureaucrat shows up at your home, he will probably be flashing a badge at you. This makes him look like a constitutional law enforcement officer. He may even be armed. Do not ask to see a warrant, and then tell him to leave if he does not have one. They will put a siege around your house. If you do not come out soon enough, they may invade, with guns drawn, or even set your house on fire.
For more information, do a search using keywords like "Symbionese Liberation Army", "Philadelphia MOVE group", "Gordon Kahl", "The Order", "Robert Matthews", "Covenant of the Sword and Arm of the Lord", "Randy Weaver" , "Branch Davidian", or "Elian Gonzalez".
If you are counting on you congressman to protect you,
understand that the average congressman is ALSO afraid to resist.
For more information, do a search using keywords like
"George Hansen", "James Traficant" or "Larry McDonald".
Are we defending the freedom to visit a mall without being monitored by hundreds of surveillance cameras, watched by federal security forces?
Are we defending the freedom to put "anti-government" bumper stickers on our car; especially anything about the right to keep and bear arms, without being stopped by police who have been trained by the FBI in "bumper sticker profiling"? With regard to "bumper sticker profiling" we should be especially aware of the fact that "They will get my gun, when they pry it from my cold dead fingers" is no longer mere semantics. At WACO, and at RUBY RIDGE,
we learned that they WILL kill us to take your guns
Are we defending the right to have "unauthorized THOUGHTS"?
There are now serious penalties for "thought crime".
Be aware that "civil forfeiture" laws make it possible to take anything that you own, by alleging that it was "intended" to be used for the commission of a crime. This could include transporting, or storing, a gun.
If "civil forfeiture" proceedings are initiated against you,
then you will have the burden of proof, to show that your thoughts were in compliance with government standards.
Are we defending the right to be free from excessive taxes? The 50 per cent government confiscation of your income at the threat of imprisonment or at the point of a gun should not even cross your mind as you revel in your freedom. After all, April 15th is a long way off.
Are we defending the right to a jury trial?
If you have a few decades with nothing better to do, study up on "administrative law". Laws are now made by the unelected bureaucrats, in hundreds of "administrative agencies". If you are charged with violating one of these "laws" you will not get a trial by a jury of your peers. You will be tried by the agency that made the charge.
Are we defending the right to communicate with each other
on the internet without having surveillance and censoring of our messages?
Can we demonstrate to Iraq how much better it would be to have a government that does not torture?
Can we demonstrate to Iraq how much better it would be to have a government that does not have secret prisons that operate outside of law?
Or are we just defending Haliburton's right to gain an Iraqi contract windfall?
I hope this message gets past the Department of Homeland security approved internet filter.