Home › Archive for Liberty › Page 4

Liberty

The Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves.

Posted on by

The Founding fathers of the United States Constitution are rolling over in their graves. When the Top court allows evidence in illegal home entry It just doesn’t

“…destroy the strongest legal incentive for the police to comply with that constitutional requirement.”

It violates the 4th Amendment of the Constitution!

Amendment IV – Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.

A Religious reason is a misnomer

Posted on by

I’ve been reading about What did Canadians do to deserve this? And while the article makes a strong argument that Islamic Terrorist believe things like this.

Sayed Qutb, the Marx of Militant Islamism, stated unequivocally: “Truth and falsehood cannot coexist on earth…the liberating struggle of jihad does not cease until all religion belongs to God.” Looking at the world through such eyes, freedom, tolerance and democratic values are not virtues – they are symptoms of weakness and moral decline.

The author Clifford D. May has ask the some of the hard questions

What were these young men taught by the religious leaders in their mosques? Did their neighbors not see where they were heading? Was it sympathy or fear that prevented them from speaking up? If it was fear – fear of whom?

His belief that the Muslim community has any more control of their radical members than any right wing Christian fundamentalist is misplaced. The problem is this; in a secular democracy where “freedom, tolerance and democratic values” are truly valued, religion is the problem. Religion is the antithesis of common sense, of reason, and truth. If you take any religion to extremes you might as well perform a frontal lobotomy. A person so conditioned is beyond reason.

You can’t reason with someone, who didn’t start out that way.

And the only hope for Democracies, who wish to preserve their “freedom, tolerance and democratic values” is education. Teaching reason, freedom and tolerance. And the first step, is practicing what they preach. To hold themselves up as a model, they should be proud to look in a mirror. In a war of ideologies, insure that your’s is the best.

UPDATE: A christian example: Fox News host to guest: ‘You’re going to hell!’

Terrorist, is a great label for freedom fighter.

Posted on by — 2 Comments ↓

I’ve been seeing a lot of arrests for ‘terrorist’ in the UK, Canada and there seem to be terrorist all over the U.S. But if the MinuteMen of the American revolution were called Terrorist. Would they have managed to overthrow a corrupt government and an oppressive King?

If you can label anyone who opposes the Bush or Blair governments as a Terrorist, how do you restore freedom and democracy to once proud countries?

I love the term “al-Qaeda-inspired” as it makes a great label.

Iran nuclear bomb ‘in 10 years’

Posted on by

Iran nuclear bomb ‘in 10 years’

I could build a nuclear bomb in 10 years, this is like saying that they haven’t made any progress. But I’ll bet the Bush and company will make this out to be a great threat to ‘Freedom and Liberty’ and I see another axis of evil speech coming.

Any, and I do mean ANY physics student at any university could make a nuclear bomb in less than 10 years. And if you are interested, let me know, and I’ll post you some clear instructions.

The Usurpation of Honor, the roots of Tyranny

Posted on by

A few days ago I stumbled on an article (an article I can’t find now) that detailed a subtle change in the oath of secrecy that is rendered at the CIA and NSA. The article went something like this. The original oath;

I swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and that I will obey the lawful orders of the President of the United States

had been changed to;

I swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and that I will obey the lawful orders of the President of the United States

Now this is very subtle, and makes the assumption that the President is issuing legal orders. But is it strikes at the heart of the oath. The uses of the word ‘lawful’ removes the honor that is required of the oath taker. That he or she is required to understand the meaning of lawful, with regards to the Constitution of the United States. It also strikes blow a for tyranny in that it is tantamount to an oath of loyalty to the President and not to the laws of the United States. An oath of fealty to President Bush.

In my search to find the original article I came upon this as further evidence that I was not misplaced in my fear that something was amiss in the subtle change

…the oath represented more than a simple, ceremonial formality; rather, it provided overarching guidance and a standard of moral conduct, as opposed to dictating specific, limited criteria.

And the limited criteria represented with this change was to relinquish the responsibility of the individual to interpret the legality of orders from the president and place into presidential control all liability for the interpretation.

It’s roughly the equivalent of a soldier saying “I was only following orders” at the Nuremberg trials.

And then I stumble upon this article Sworn fealty to the president as the answer to everything and realized that this subtle change was exactly what Bush requires from his staff, his ‘serfs’. Loyalty, not to the constitution, or the truth, or to the American people. But loyalty to GW Bush. The same loyalty that would be due any tyrant, by that tyrant.

It also goes far in explaining the purge at the CIA. All the previous staff having sworn using the old oath, the one requiring the oath taker to interpret legality, are being purged and replaced with personnel sworn to fealty to Bush.

That should scare everyone. We are not worried about a dictator in the U.S. we already have one.

The Democratic motive

Posted on by

There has been a lot of talk about the driving principals of the Democratic Party in America. It often hinges on the platform, often driven by the ‘left’ or progressive side of the party. And while I am more or less a progressive. I believe that what often is said about the Democratic party being liberal, it just that. And I also believe that is what is the current dilemma in the U.S. The democrats have often been described as spending more time arguing with itself rather than against the Republicans. And if they are to win elections they need to represent a clear deferential to the republican platform.

The republicans are controlled by a small neocon core with a very focused agenda. They do not represent a majority of the voting population. They may boast, and spin the illusion that they are the majority, but they are not. What the democratic party is, and represents are many voices, hence the arguing with itself. What the wrong everyone feels here, is not who is in control of the government, it is that the government voices the opinion of such a minority of the population. The democratic party is a mix of conservative, centralist and progressive voters, a clear cross section of american politics. The current ‘conservative’ party as it is being managed by the neocons, only represents the far right. The merely conservative, just right of center, are not part of the current republican neocon strategy. The complaint here is that the voices of the population, all the voices are not being heard. That is, at it’s core, the purpose of the Democratic party. And that should be the platform of the Democratic party. To represent ALL OF THE VIEWS of the American people. To bring back real democracy, where all voices are heard. That should be it’s battle cry, that it will listen to everyones voice. As opposed to the current republicans, that only want to hear the voices of their far right, a fundamentalist narrow perspective. It’s the reason they do not want freedom of speech. The airing of opposing viewpoints is counter to their objectives.

The Democratic party must represent all of the people of the U.S. not just the conservative far right as the current administration does. But they must take that voice from the far right and insure that their voice is heard along with the voices of their neighbor’s. The entire spectrum of the American voice should be heard through the voice of the Democratic party. That should be it’s strong point. Representation of the American People.

The Phony war on American Christianity

Posted on by

The so called war on American Christianity is GOP propaganda, clear and simple. If you want to stir up the fundamentalist, bring up a war on Christianity. The current email propaganda I have been subjected to goes like this.

There is a war on Christmas

“We can no longer say Merry Christmas” . Now it has to be Season’s Greeting ”

This isn’t true, we are just as free to say Merry Christmas as we ever were. If the greeting card companies are printing more ‘Season Greeting’s’ cards it’s to maximize profits it’s hardy a war on Christmas. However if right wing talk show hosts say it is a war, well surly it must be so? Not likely, just more GOP propaganda. Something to fire the passions of the wingnut fringe.

“In God We Trust”

“In God We Trust” is our national motto. This is not some Christian,
right wing, political slogan.. We adopted this motto because Christian
men and women…….on Christian principles………….
founded this nation….. and this is clearly documented.

Actually It is clearly documented In God We Trust

is the current national motto of the United States of America and of the Great State of Florida. It was so designated by an act of Congress in 1956 and officially supersedes “E Pluribus Unum” (From Many, One) according to section 5114 of title 31, United States Code. President Eisenhower signed the resolution into law on 30 July 1956.

So the motto was not the official motto for most of the history of the U.S. and was not because Christians founded the nation. Besides the point that Muslim, Jews and Christians all pray to the same God, does not make this motto Christian. As noted in the case of MADALYN MURRAY O’HAIR et al. v. W. MICHAEL BLUMENTHAL, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, et al. (462 F. Supp. 19 — W.D. Tex 1978), the court opined: “Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of religious exercise.”
I personally prefer E Pluribus Unum, From many Nations, one Nation. It’s what America is, the combination of all nations. And this brings about the rest of this propaganda email

American Culture

We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don’t care how you did things where you came from.
This is OUR COUNTRY,
our land, and our lifestyle…we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle. We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language!

The answer here is that Many people are surprised to learn that the United States has no official language. And as for culture, that too has been the aggregate of both it’s immigrant and native populations. The fact that most of the culture reflects western European culture, does not take away from the multicultural nature of our restaurants. The United States has, over the majority of it’s history, been a culture composed of the best features of it’s population. It has never been chained to any particular cultural eddies and back-currents. Mind you learning English will go further to an immigrants integration into the ‘American culture’ but as that culture is always changing you must keep on your toes.

This propaganda is indicative of of the Republican strategy of the old ‘One Two’ punch, Stir up anger, and emotions, then direct the anger at a target. I believe that the next email I receive will be one of ‘It the Democrats that are to blame for the polluting of our culture’. Or it’s the Liberal’s fault, or some named politician that the GOP Neocons are against. The fact that this propaganda is playing on the emotions of the conservative voters tendency to resist change in any form, a belief in ‘the good old days’ and that the ‘radicals’ are destroying America, is just that, propaganda. There is always going to be change, no one can stop it. The GOP only wants to get people to take their eye off the ball so they can continue their practice of corrupt political cronyism. A near royalty of political dynasties, dynasties which we as americans overthrew to become the United States of America.

Update: There does seem to be a move to formalize English as the national language here, but President George W. Bush has long opposed making English the country’s national language probably because he doesn’t speak english 😉

Michelle Malkin: Bush Critic, incites impeachment

Posted on by

Michelle is inciting the Right Wing Bloggers to call for an Impeachment.

DENY, HEDGE, SPIN

This White House has another burgeoning debacle on its hands.

Message to (bush) apologists: Stop blaming the messengers. It’s only going to make those poll numbers you worry so much about worse.

Message to the White House: Stop blaming the messengers. Do us all a favor by ending this travesty and apologizing. And please don’t fire Mario Martinez for telling the reporter the truth.

Net Neutrality, and opinions, on Ethics.

Posted on by

David S. Isenberg is worried that for once he has disagreed with Cory,
Tim Wu and Cory Doctorow on Network Neutrality

Disagreeing with Cory should be common. He’s only another person with an opinion.

As for Net Neutrality regulation, you will never know till you try, if it will work or not.

Anytime congress passes a law, someone’s rights get removed. But would you remove the restriction over which side of the road you drive on?

Many of the restrictions we place on ourselves are based on an understanding of our human nature. We know that we are greedy, we place restrictions on our greed.

Since corporations are treated as a ‘corporate body’ and hence treated in the courts as if the corporation were a human. You must treat that person based upon what you believe that persons ethics are founded on. Since Corporations have no moral soul, the observations of it’s ethical behavior are, that it has no ethics. And hence controls placed on the corporate person are greater than that placed on a human person.

Cory’s problem is that that he personalizes the issues from his own point of view. He believes that as an ethical person, he should be allow to control his own actions. And for the most part he can, except for his tendency to run off at the mouth. But he is not a corporation, who’s only ethic is profit. And has no moral compunction to control that motivation. Laws are passed to provide the moral lessons to corporations.

PNAC, MySpace, Murdoch and Technorati Search

Posted on by

I was disturbed the other day that Technorati was returning a different political balance when I searched. It seemed that the entire blogsphere had moved to the right. And I noted that most of the links were in MySpace blogs. I didn’t think too much about it, just that MySpace bloggers might have been very busy on the subject I was searching for.

Then I saw this:
NeoConservatives: Destroying America for Republicans and Democrats alike

and noticed one thing out of place, or rather one person Ruppert Murdoch and I remembered my search results. And remembered that MySpace.com blogspace had been bought by Murdoch. The phrase from the article “Control the International Commons of cyberspace” struck home.

Could Technorati search results be biased to conservative Blogs on MySpace?

Even given the easily availability of my tinhat close to hand. This scared me. I hope it scares you also. Has someone gained control of blog searching. Could they? And is this part of the NeoCon plan?

Update: More interesting things about MySpace Murdoch wants teenagers’…

Nuclear First strike was granted years ago.

Posted on by

With all this talk about a Nuclear First strike on Iran, no one bothered to notice that this plan has been in the works since December 2002 since the start of the Iraq war and published here in the Washington post September 11, 2005 Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan

To quote:

The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

Bush has been planning to Nuke somebody for a long time, that would surely guarantee his place in history. The First Strike Nuclear Killer.

The last time nuclear weapons were used was as a Last Resort, By Harry S. Truman. If you use Nuclear weapons at the beginning of a war, where does it escalate from there?

That should scare any sane person, too bad the U.S. does not have a Sane President. (If the president is not sane, does that mean you could replace him on medical grounds?)

This is your most Dystopic Science Fiction movie plot, an Insane President with his hand on the nuclear option.

Funny, I don’t remember any of these movies working out very well.

War with Iran, a dead certainty

Posted on by

Lets be entirely clear, I’m not i favor of a war with Iran. I wasn’t in favor of a war with Iraq either. But it happened, and the war will happen with Iran, just a sure as the sun rises in the east if George Bush remains as president of the United States. There is nothing in his past experience that would force him to rethink his ability to make war on anyone he wishes. With the republicans in control of Congress, and the Supreme Court. There is little expectation that he will face any opposition to his madness.

So the real question is this, what are we going to do after

Bush Nuke’s Iran in the name of the American People

hits the front page of the world newspapers?

It will be like watching the elite Iraqis scrambling to leave Iraq, we will see the wealthy and well connected in the U.S. vanish out of the country leaving the poor and middle classes to suffer the wrath of the Muslim/Iranian reaction.

And 9/11 will look like ants at a picnic.

History repeats

Posted on by

If you do this simple exercise with history in mind.

If you refer to George W. Bush as King George II (King George I, being his father)

Then Iraqi insurgencies could be rename as American patriots rebelling against their King.

The Iraqi ‘problem’ is sounding more and more like the The American Revolution

Or if Iraq is headed for Civil War, you could translate the causes from the American Civil War as this.

Change the conflict origins from

States Law VS Federal Law
to
Religious Law VS Secular Law

And guess what, you gain more perspective here