The death of the US Constitution, and the ungoing fight for Liberty.

I posted a topic called "The decline of American Liberty," a few months back I wanted to reiterate on some points I made, and make some new ones.

Firstly, I wanted to say, since a lot of Liberals on the site attack me, and brand me with the typical Republicans. But I'm not. Typically, Republicans support war cause they see it as "keeping America safe." I totally disagree, I think our foreign policy gets us into trouble.

However, due to the alleged "war on terror," everyday Americans are loosing the Rights that we've so bravely fought for. It's this whole idea, that we need to sacrifice freedom to be "safe." But is communism/fascism/BIG government, ever really safe?

The U.S Constitution is a document which I hold dear to my heart. It is our Founding Document, and was written to limit the power of the federal government to the people.

The following amendments are just a few which are in dire circumstances. In just a few years time, our constitution may mean nothing, and America may be controlled by a single king or dictator.
Article 13

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

With Obama passing HR 347, the freedom of speech is no more. You cannot protest the government, near the government. In fact, anything considered "disruptive" can be a felony charge, and prison time! Also, the Federal Government has tried very hard this election year, to keep independent press AWAY from the candidates. Because the last thing the want is an educated citizen. The more you know about Obama/Romney the less you like them. So keeping the Media Control, gives them power of the majority. Obama was really no better than Romney, but probably pretty equal.


Article [IV]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

With the passing of CISPA, warrentless wiretapping and, government agents spying on FaceBook, Skype, etc. We should all come to realize that the federal government doesn't give a fuck about your privacy. But it gets worse- the Federal Government has recently been caught spying on Patriots, Third party supporters and protest organizers. Yes, in the "Land of the FREE."

Article [V]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Article [VI]

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Article [VII]

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Article [VIII]

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

ALL THIS, is gone. Thanks to Bushes "Patriot Act" and Obama's NDAA. We no longer have the right to public trial. What do you know? Isn't that interesting.. One can be executed for "terrorism" without any type of trial or defense lawyer on their behalf.


So I urge people to question what freedom really is. When people talk about Obama and Civil Liberties, it's like a smack in the face about the whole concept of being able to speak freely, privacy and, the federal Government not prying into our lives.

We are living in the Movie "1984," The federal government is Big Brother, and the DHS is the "Thought Police." Think about that analogy. George Orwell couldn't imagine what type of tyranny we will be under when government starts reading peoples emails and text messages, and start spying on citizens with drones,while maintaining "Order" through the military.

This is NOT conspiracy, this has been happening within the 11 some odd years of "fighting terror." Our police have become a corporate gang, the federal government has become an extension of Wall St. and Obama, is just as guilty as anyone. He's been nothing but a puppet for the elite.

So friends, I hope you make it easy on yourself and give up on the Federal Government, before they give up on you. Cause one day the Thought Police might know you're thinking a little too much...

 

Why don't you just move to Canada already?

 

Canada is on the same path as America and England. I want to see our country restored to what it was meant to be. (Which is greatly different than Europe or Canada.)

 

Of course all this surveillance is about protecting the powerful from the public, it's not about protecting us from terrorists.

As for the Right Wing Authoritarian type which are generally Republicans, you don't know how to debate them properly. You don't appeal to their humanity, some notion of a greater good -- they don't care about those things. You go right for their sense of fear and prejudice (and when I say prejudice, I don't mean what you think -- I mean using loaded arguments)

They're scared of Obama -- use that. Don't mention that Bush was as bad or worse, just focus on Obama. And talk about how the government has labeled conservatives, ex-soldiers as potential terrorists and talk about how a DOD training manual effectively labeled protest as low-level terrorism, and then mention how the TEA Party was treated (they don't care about OWS so don't use that).

Talk about how the government has now allowed drones to be used over the United States and how Obama has asserted the right to kill people who he deems to be terrorists on criteria we don't know and could very well be protesters, conservatives, former soldiers, and so on.

You don't appeal to their humanity: They don't have humanity
You don't appeal to a notion of a greater good: They usually don't care about that
Don't focus on freedom: They aren't terribly concerned with freedom, they care about safety -- so you want to frame Obama and the current policies as a threat to their safety so as to drive them to oppose these policies -- which just happens to be for liberty.

The Republican party understands their members very well: Most Republicans are motivated by fear -- the leadership probably isn't and are just cynically exploiting their supporters but most ordinary people are motivated by these details. That's why they use relentless fear-mongering in their politics -- in some cases it's even contradictory

Obama for example is all of the following

- A White Hating Christian
- A Secret Muslim
- A Communist

Never mind the fact that if you're a Communist you can't be a Christian; if you're a Muslim, you can't be a Christian. Basically they just throw out enough shit which is almost totally fear based and figure that they'll vote Republican out of fear. Lee Atwater once said that people vote their fears.

You want to get through to the Right Wingers use fear-mongering

 

Do not both Canada and Europe both possess qualities America does need to possess?

 

"You don't appeal to a notion of a greater good:" Because they know damn weii they are the 'Greater Good' and you best not dispute that God given fact!

 

Can you keep us out of this, please. Thanks.

 

PJ1783, you obviously have not read many of his posts. I get the feeling he is being genuine, though. We now know you are just a BS artist. Thanks for the heads up

 

odonII

What are you talking about I'm not a BS artist -- I've dealt with RWA types for a long time and I've butted heads with the more times than you can imagine and I've found that generally if you want to get through them you use fear-mongering.

Maybe I exaggerated when I said they lack humanity, but they are very difficult to appeal to unless you exploit their emotions. They tend to respond best to fear-mongering so that's the best choice.

If you'll note all the things I stated -- they weren't innacurate
- In 2009 DHS did publish a report which lumped in essentially many conservatives as well as former soldiers with right wing militants, white supremacists and so on. Admittedly the removed most of the objectionable material but my impression was they meant everything they said and simply didn't mean to say it; therefore they'd operate under the same premise.
- In 2009 a DOD training manual did define protest as low level terrorism, though they claimed it was an error and they'd rescore the tests. Then later on came the OWS protesters were treated badly and counter-terrorism officials were there every single time: They did view protest as low level terrorism
- Obama has asserted the right to kill people who he deems to be terrorists and he has not specified exactly what criteria are being used
- Drones are being used over the United States, and some can be armed -- they have even built civilian ones that can be armed (shoot rounds, lob grenades, or fire tazers)

I might have went extreme on the emotional appeals and might have made a few exaggerations but what I wrote was correct. Most people I would appeal to civil rights issues, and how this is wrong and un-constituational.

Right-wing authoritarian types are a unique breed and require special strategies

 

If you know full well that what you say is a departure from the truth - you are BSing, imho.

If you are in a debate and you say: "Obama has asserted the right to kill people who he deems to be terrorists on criteria we don't know and could very well be protesters, conservatives, former soldiers, and so on. " You know that is BS.

"Obama for example is all of the following

- A White Hating Christian
- A Secret Muslim
- A Communist"

You know that is BS.

Essentially?

Are you suggesting some have come back and it has not lead to the above?

They weren't totally accurate, either, and it seems you know this.

You have essentially twisted words and statements for your own ends.

BSing.

It's the Alex Jones form of debate, imho.

What I'm saying is that you are not expressing your own genuine opinions, you are trying to point score/appeal to x, y or z - in a concious way.

So when you make posts or respond to a post how do people know if you are being genuine or not (regardless of if you are trying to get through to a 'right-winger')?

 

Then we need give up the proprietary model. The american prosperity is in wild north america. Everything is now containerized.

 

Well it might be an exaggeration or a stretch, but it's not so far a departure from the truth that you could call it total nonsense

Actually the definition of terrorism has progressively increased, the public hasn't been given a list of criteria which are used to extrajudicially kill people, and you know why Obama wants to use drone-strikes?

It's because he doesn't want to jail people -- all the legal issues over torture and stuff. So instead he figures he'll just kill them and a drone is the best tool -- it can do it from a distance and eliminate any possibility of surrender.

And as I mentioned earlier...

DHS did release that report which lumped a great number of people who would probably classed as mainstream conservatives in with right-wing militants and white supremacists. Also lumped as a potential threat were former servicemen. Though they deleted the ex-soldier part, the mainstream conservative part from the statement later on after people were horrified and angered, that's just because they didn't mean for it to come off that way or sound so bad. They changed the statement and operated under the same premise.

When it came to protest as low-level terrorism this is the article which discussed it and while they claim it was an error on the test, the fact is that during OWS they had counterterrorism officials there every single time.

Admittedly the fact that I'm describing the mentality the government had towards the TEA-Party is a bit dishonest -- but otherwise the statement far as I know is correct.

Of course it's bullshit: If you even read the article I was pointing out that the Republican party has used all those claims about the President as a fear-mongering tactic

They're totally inconsistent with each other -- you can't be a committed Communist and be a Committed Christian, and you cannot be a Committed Christian and be a Committed Muslim -- the point is that they use fear-mongering extensively and they do it because it works on many right-wingers

Over the years I've become a bit cynical. The past 11 years have been used as a free-for-all for the government and powerful interests to gut our freedoms, wage war after war, jail and torture people.

The worst thing to come out of 9/11 isn't that 3,000 people got killed, a couple of planes got wrecked, and a few buildings got knocked over -- it's the way our civil liberties have been eroded, all the wars, all the people we've jailed, tortured, and killed (via torture, via the wars).

Shortly after 9/11 we were all scared shitless and many people just were willing to give up their freedoms to feel safe -- those who realized that this expanse of executive power was a dangerous trend were dismissed as being foolish or dangerous.

As time has gone on more people have realized how bad things are and how unreasonable the state of affairs are, but the Right-Wing Authoritarian types have always been the most stubborn, difficult, and unreasonable people to deal with and I've found myself butting heads with them all the time.

Maybe I've become burned out over dealing with them and have resorted to dirty tricks to get them to listen. At least I've managed to get them to listen.

 

Every lie has a grain of truth

Yes I do. Not to kill protesters, ex-servicemen and Conservatives - while they are cooking on their BBQ in Texas.

Who would they be?

Ofcourse some would be horrified and angered.
Every soldier is supposed to be a hero, right?
Are you accepting they were right or are you saying they were wrong?

From what I can see - the questionnaire had 'protester' as a possible answer.
It did not say a 'protester' was a low-level terrorist.

Where in the pdf does it say:
"The "correct" answer is Protests."

Is there a comment from the DoD?

Fair enough.

The problem is, you seem to use those ticks as standard practice.
It's just a little strange you would admit that you were less than completely honest, and then expect to be trusted.

 

odonII

It included people who were basically
1: Conservatives
2: Those who preferred smaller government
3: Preferred less Federal government & preferred more state and local control

They should be

I'm saying that the report was wrong to lump soldiers in with domestic terrorists

If you read the article it said the answer was protest. Therefore low-level terrorism is defined as protest.

The DOD stated that it was an error and they were re-scoring the test.

When OWS started, they had counter-terrorism officials at every protest. That indicates the government views protesters as low-level terrorists.

With the Right-Wingers -- yeah -- it's the only thing that gets through their lead-lined skulls in my experience.

Less than completely honest with some people

 

Our govt. has harmed us a thousand times greater then those dozen hijackers. The US has become a walled concentration camp. 'Show me your papers' is the norm. The Patriot Act says everyone is a potential terrorists until they prove their not. I dont think the politicians fear the people any longer. They have legislated away the citizens power. Our only hope now is for the Supereme Court to knock down each part of the Patriot Act. Politians, career lawyer type pols, wont give back our liberties voluntarily. We need a new Civil Rights movemento to restore our Constitutional Rights.

 

Why?

It didn't.

"...the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."

...which is not calling them 'domestic terrorists,' is it?
It is slightly alarmist given the % of returning soldiers that have succumbed to such 'interests' - which is why it was altered, no doubt.

The article did, yes.
Did the actual pdf or the actual questionnaire say that?
Or did it just use that as a potential answer?
The potential 'controversy' is that the answer include 'protesters,' not that the actual answer was 'protesters'.

It's a little like suggesting that the government think every protester is a criminal because the police are present, isn't it?

What about the the thread: 'DHS Scanner Reads People at Molecular Level: Coming in A Few Months!' where you said: 'With a device like this, you effectively have mind-reading technology that can work from a distance. This looks like the perfect means to monitor people in absolute detail and it's not for the good of the public.'

Some people might presume their every waking thought could be read and recorded. But that isn't quite true, is it?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think you are a dastardly evil person (or whatever)
- It's just a little odd that from the start you show your hand, and your methods of debate are so openly displayed by your own admissions -regardless of whom you say they are for.
You make some good arguments, though.
I'm just not quite sure how genuinely honest (to your own opinions) they are.
I honestly didn't wish to make a big deal of this btw, or hound you on your first few days here - you'll have to defend your position, regardless. Welcome!

 

Okay, it's calling them potential domestic terrorists.

The questionnaire had protest as the answer -- people wrote in from the DOD over this because they found it disturbing

It's not that the police were there -- it was that counter-terrorism officials were there.

A lot of research has been done in the fMRI field regarding brain-scanning technology -- you'd be surprised just how much can be done...

I was trying to teach him how to pierce through the dense skulls of some right-wingers.

Thanks

 

PJ1783... Do you watch AVTM? (Adam vs the man.) He's an ex-soldier who served in Iraq, who is now a freedom fighter.

 

The key word is 'potential'.Which some are.
The DoD has to live in the real world where ex soldiers do lose the plot etc.
Most don't.

Didn't you say the answer the DoD gave was 'protesters'?
Like I said: 'The potential 'controversy' is that the answer includes 'protesters,' not that the actual answer was 'protesters'. '
If you knew that you are not being honest.

You didn't quite get what I was saying, I guess.

I know. Reading peoples minds isn't one of them.

He already knows.

 

...