In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
So easy to believe the lie
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
So easy to believe the lie
by Ed Lewis
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. ~~ John F. Kennedy
Whatever else one might believe about JFK, this is the expressed belief we should be responding to. It is imperative that government operates above-board (openly) and that the pretense of "national security" be dropped for if we do not know statements supporting actions are factual, then we cannot possibly know that actions are justified.
Besides, what is "national security"? We know that government acting in secret never provided security for the approximate 2700 that died in the WTC event. We also know it never provided security for the 168 that died in the Oklahoma City bombing of the Murrah Building. We know that the deaths in Flight 800 were hidden behind a veil of secrecy. We additionally know the 80-plus deaths of men, women, and children in the Waco massacre were unfounded; that the people were innocent of any crime against their fellow people.
If this isn't enough, it is common knowledge that one of the purposes of the CIA is to force changes in foreign governments by putting in "leaders" who go along with the US politico/military/industrial coalition, the union of power mongers running this country secretly behind closed doors. Congress has very little, if anything to do with it, since its power to declare war is never a matter of concern. Nor is the obligation of its members - or the balance of the federal government - to uphold the Constitution a matter of concern.
But, does the coalition and its actions provide security for the American people?
When national security is mentioned, it is always with the thought that it is a term referring to the security of the American people. And, yet, the security of the American people is never enhanced but is, instead, increasingly threatened. In fact, the most serious threat to the American people is because of national security.
Every measure taken since Lincoln's reign has been to deprive people of their rights. The extreme is that current measures - when fully instated and enforced by government unconstitutional enforcers - will treat every American who voices an opinion as an enemy of the state. And, who or what is it that makes up the state? Is it the people?
We are supposedly the "land of the free". If one expresses an opinion, shouldn't "free" people be able to judge for themselves exactly what it means to them and whether or not to give it credence, particularly if all facts are considered?
If this is so, then how can expressing an opinion make one an enemy of the state? And, yet, now it does. It must since "thought policing" has become a major activity of the government acting in secret. Communiqu?s of all types that were monitored in secret by the government are now monitored openly under the guise of national security.
How can one possibly feel secure when private communications are monitored? Doesn't this smack of Gestapo tactics being applied against the people? If this helps some people feel secure, then totalitarian control is just the ticket for them.
With rights essentially destroyed, then is national security to protect the people - or to protect the state (the governments) that has far exceeded constitutional authority? If constitutional authority is exceeded, then has not the state assumed powers it does not have? And, then, the premise this country was founded on - that the people and their rights are dominate over the government - been effectively done away with?
Does this not mean, then, that national security of the people has been destroyed, that the security being provided is NOT to protect the rights of the people but instead to protect those blocking the exercise of rights?
Bush has said that people must not listen to "conspiracy theorists" but - what if the theorists are not stating theories but are stating facts? If the truth is that facts would reveal the government is the greatest criminal element the world has ever known, then wouldn't it make sense that government would protect itself? Wouldn't the easiest means be to stop the people from receiving evidence that would justify indicting officials for treason and a multitude of other high crimes against the people?
A natural man or woman's rights being violated by another citizen or government entity defines a crime. Without damage to another citizen or interference in his free expression of his rights, there can be no crime. Furthermore, it is impossible for a natural by birthright citizen (unless he is a created citizen or franchise of the United States) to violate the rights and rules of the "state" as governments do not have rights and the rules are for the administration of government.
In the case of the 1st Amendment and free speech, if one makes a statement that cannot be proved as factual, then any citizen has recourse against the person making the statement. He can sue the alleged offender for liable or slander and have his case heard before the people represented by a jury of his peers.
Unless members of government believe themselves to be outside of the Constitution and its amendments, then each has the same rights as any private citizen - to be sued or to sue. If they believe themselves outside the Constitution - the so-called "official immunity" or "clean hands doctrine" - then they have essentially declared themselves to not be constitutional citizens and that the supreme Law of the Land does not apply to them. This leads to violating the rights of the people and treason against the people.
To sum this up, government exists to protect unalienable rights of the people. If it fails in this, especially by infringing upon those rights, then security measures are not for the security of those rights. It is used to circumvent unalienable rights with the government - and its controllers - profiting to a greater degree. It does so by committing crimes against the people.
Thus, if those in government refuse to obey the Constitution, then they should be tried for treason, as it is clear they conspire to deprive people of rights. This is aiding and abetting known or unknown enemies to our constitutional Republic form of government, with the intent to destroy God-given rights. They have placed themselves outside the realm of not only the common laws of Man this country was founded on but also above the laws written by themselves to control themselves (Title 5, Title 18, and State statutes, for examples).
Giving themselves "official immunity" to protect themselves from prosecution for their thousands of violations against the people is unconstitutional and can only be enforced by corrupted law enforcers and courts. The aforementioned "cleans hands" doctrine, however, is a topic in and of itself and will be undertaken in a separate essay.
We must accept that when those in or associated with the US Government use the phrase "national security", that it refers only to the security of the US Government, not the people or the security of our shores. The fraudulent concept currently allows Bush and Cheney - and their many corrupt associates - to potentially hide an untold number of facts from the American people.
Hiding of facts by the current administration is of such monumental proportions that one might conclude that "national security" is being used as an excuse to hide facts that could very well lead to charges of treason. After all, to be involved in a conspiracy doesn't mean one has to voice anything - what is not said or what is withheld can be just as misleading and fraudulent.
"Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or when an inquiry left unanswered could be intentionally misleading.We cannot condone this shocking conduct.If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately." US v Tweel, 550F 2d 297, 299-300
Well, Folks, silence is not golden when it comes to government. Silence could very well be hiding the blackest of lies - and it could be deadly to our country as a sovereign nation and we people as the sovereign in this country. Believe the disinformers if you wish. Believe those who discredit those who attempt to get at the truth. Keep calling the corruptness in government "conspiracy theory" and believing that such are not to be believed. Do just as Bush wants and remain ignorant of conspiracy facts.
But, don't * when we become the "land of the unfree" and "home of the enslaved" with all means of our defense removed. An uninformed public is so easy to manipulate. Just ask those who do the disinforming - they will tell you the same.
Besides, believing the lie is easier than demanding the truth as the truth might dictate the necessity of action against tyranny. And, we "have-it-so-easy" Americans don't want that, do we?
It is time that ALL - 100 percent of - government documents be opened up to the scrutiny of the people. The US Government has already sold all its "military" secrets and weapons to other countries, including those in which our people are now being put in harm's way, and all countries know of the US military might.
Thus, there aren't any secrets left that should be kept from the governments of other countries as in providing true security of the American people. All that is actually "hidden" now are actions that have been taken against the people of this country; to develop systems to use against the people of this country; and to use the same to enslave all the people of the world under one tyrannical government made up of self-chosen "elites" in the politico/military/industrial coalition.
So, here is a proposal. If there is nothing to hide; if there is only conspiracy theory and no conspiracy fact; then make the government and the despicable disinformationists of the media prove it. No more bull hockey - just documentation without any blacked out words or pages. This means full disclosure of the recorded word and no more "hiding" behind "national security" by corrupt officials - past, current, and future.
Isn't this the American way they express it - if you don't have anything to hide, what are you worried about when we say violations of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th amendments are okay since it involves "national security". Can't we equally apply this to them - sort of "Hey, if government doesn't have anything to hide, then open up the vaults and let us be the judge."
The government must not be allowed to rule away our rights as free men under any guise, let alone national security of the corporation known as US Government. Let it be said once again that we must never forget that after all is said and done, the fact remains it is our country, not the government's, a mere tool of the People.
Ed Lewis is a veteran writer, having been published in many online journals and newspapers. Mr. Lewis, a Missourian dedicated to liberty and truth, may be reached for comment at elewis@mail.shighway.com
http://www.libertyforall.net/2002/archive/easy-to-believe.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
by Ed Lewis
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. ~~ John F. Kennedy
Whatever else one might believe about JFK, this is the expressed belief we should be responding to. It is imperative that government operates above-board (openly) and that the pretense of "national security" be dropped for if we do not know statements supporting actions are factual, then we cannot possibly know that actions are justified.
Besides, what is "national security"? We know that government acting in secret never provided security for the approximate 2700 that died in the WTC event. We also know it never provided security for the 168 that died in the Oklahoma City bombing of the Murrah Building. We know that the deaths in Flight 800 were hidden behind a veil of secrecy. We additionally know the 80-plus deaths of men, women, and children in the Waco massacre were unfounded; that the people were innocent of any crime against their fellow people.
If this isn't enough, it is common knowledge that one of the purposes of the CIA is to force changes in foreign governments by putting in "leaders" who go along with the US politico/military/industrial coalition, the union of power mongers running this country secretly behind closed doors. Congress has very little, if anything to do with it, since its power to declare war is never a matter of concern. Nor is the obligation of its members - or the balance of the federal government - to uphold the Constitution a matter of concern.
But, does the coalition and its actions provide security for the American people?
When national security is mentioned, it is always with the thought that it is a term referring to the security of the American people. And, yet, the security of the American people is never enhanced but is, instead, increasingly threatened. In fact, the most serious threat to the American people is because of national security.
Every measure taken since Lincoln's reign has been to deprive people of their rights. The extreme is that current measures - when fully instated and enforced by government unconstitutional enforcers - will treat every American who voices an opinion as an enemy of the state. And, who or what is it that makes up the state? Is it the people?
We are supposedly the "land of the free". If one expresses an opinion, shouldn't "free" people be able to judge for themselves exactly what it means to them and whether or not to give it credence, particularly if all facts are considered?
If this is so, then how can expressing an opinion make one an enemy of the state? And, yet, now it does. It must since "thought policing" has become a major activity of the government acting in secret. Communiqu?s of all types that were monitored in secret by the government are now monitored openly under the guise of national security.
How can one possibly feel secure when private communications are monitored? Doesn't this smack of Gestapo tactics being applied against the people? If this helps some people feel secure, then totalitarian control is just the ticket for them.
With rights essentially destroyed, then is national security to protect the people - or to protect the state (the governments) that has far exceeded constitutional authority? If constitutional authority is exceeded, then has not the state assumed powers it does not have? And, then, the premise this country was founded on - that the people and their rights are dominate over the government - been effectively done away with?
Does this not mean, then, that national security of the people has been destroyed, that the security being provided is NOT to protect the rights of the people but instead to protect those blocking the exercise of rights?
Bush has said that people must not listen to "conspiracy theorists" but - what if the theorists are not stating theories but are stating facts? If the truth is that facts would reveal the government is the greatest criminal element the world has ever known, then wouldn't it make sense that government would protect itself? Wouldn't the easiest means be to stop the people from receiving evidence that would justify indicting officials for treason and a multitude of other high crimes against the people?
A natural man or woman's rights being violated by another citizen or government entity defines a crime. Without damage to another citizen or interference in his free expression of his rights, there can be no crime. Furthermore, it is impossible for a natural by birthright citizen (unless he is a created citizen or franchise of the United States) to violate the rights and rules of the "state" as governments do not have rights and the rules are for the administration of government.
In the case of the 1st Amendment and free speech, if one makes a statement that cannot be proved as factual, then any citizen has recourse against the person making the statement. He can sue the alleged offender for liable or slander and have his case heard before the people represented by a jury of his peers.
Unless members of government believe themselves to be outside of the Constitution and its amendments, then each has the same rights as any private citizen - to be sued or to sue. If they believe themselves outside the Constitution - the so-called "official immunity" or "clean hands doctrine" - then they have essentially declared themselves to not be constitutional citizens and that the supreme Law of the Land does not apply to them. This leads to violating the rights of the people and treason against the people.
To sum this up, government exists to protect unalienable rights of the people. If it fails in this, especially by infringing upon those rights, then security measures are not for the security of those rights. It is used to circumvent unalienable rights with the government - and its controllers - profiting to a greater degree. It does so by committing crimes against the people.
Thus, if those in government refuse to obey the Constitution, then they should be tried for treason, as it is clear they conspire to deprive people of rights. This is aiding and abetting known or unknown enemies to our constitutional Republic form of government, with the intent to destroy God-given rights. They have placed themselves outside the realm of not only the common laws of Man this country was founded on but also above the laws written by themselves to control themselves (Title 5, Title 18, and State statutes, for examples).
Giving themselves "official immunity" to protect themselves from prosecution for their thousands of violations against the people is unconstitutional and can only be enforced by corrupted law enforcers and courts. The aforementioned "cleans hands" doctrine, however, is a topic in and of itself and will be undertaken in a separate essay.
We must accept that when those in or associated with the US Government use the phrase "national security", that it refers only to the security of the US Government, not the people or the security of our shores. The fraudulent concept currently allows Bush and Cheney - and their many corrupt associates - to potentially hide an untold number of facts from the American people.
Hiding of facts by the current administration is of such monumental proportions that one might conclude that "national security" is being used as an excuse to hide facts that could very well lead to charges of treason. After all, to be involved in a conspiracy doesn't mean one has to voice anything - what is not said or what is withheld can be just as misleading and fraudulent.
"Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or when an inquiry left unanswered could be intentionally misleading.We cannot condone this shocking conduct.If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately." US v Tweel, 550F 2d 297, 299-300
Well, Folks, silence is not golden when it comes to government. Silence could very well be hiding the blackest of lies - and it could be deadly to our country as a sovereign nation and we people as the sovereign in this country. Believe the disinformers if you wish. Believe those who discredit those who attempt to get at the truth. Keep calling the corruptness in government "conspiracy theory" and believing that such are not to be believed. Do just as Bush wants and remain ignorant of conspiracy facts.
But, don't * when we become the "land of the unfree" and "home of the enslaved" with all means of our defense removed. An uninformed public is so easy to manipulate. Just ask those who do the disinforming - they will tell you the same.
Besides, believing the lie is easier than demanding the truth as the truth might dictate the necessity of action against tyranny. And, we "have-it-so-easy" Americans don't want that, do we?
It is time that ALL - 100 percent of - government documents be opened up to the scrutiny of the people. The US Government has already sold all its "military" secrets and weapons to other countries, including those in which our people are now being put in harm's way, and all countries know of the US military might.
Thus, there aren't any secrets left that should be kept from the governments of other countries as in providing true security of the American people. All that is actually "hidden" now are actions that have been taken against the people of this country; to develop systems to use against the people of this country; and to use the same to enslave all the people of the world under one tyrannical government made up of self-chosen "elites" in the politico/military/industrial coalition.
So, here is a proposal. If there is nothing to hide; if there is only conspiracy theory and no conspiracy fact; then make the government and the despicable disinformationists of the media prove it. No more bull hockey - just documentation without any blacked out words or pages. This means full disclosure of the recorded word and no more "hiding" behind "national security" by corrupt officials - past, current, and future.
Isn't this the American way they express it - if you don't have anything to hide, what are you worried about when we say violations of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th amendments are okay since it involves "national security". Can't we equally apply this to them - sort of "Hey, if government doesn't have anything to hide, then open up the vaults and let us be the judge."
The government must not be allowed to rule away our rights as free men under any guise, let alone national security of the corporation known as US Government. Let it be said once again that we must never forget that after all is said and done, the fact remains it is our country, not the government's, a mere tool of the People.
Ed Lewis is a veteran writer, having been published in many online journals and newspapers. Mr. Lewis, a Missourian dedicated to liberty and truth, may be reached for comment at elewis@mail.shighway.com
http://www.libertyforall.net/2002/archive/easy-to-believe.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments