Cyber-Gazette
Masonry ICF
Common Sense Too
........... Part1 ............
Introduction
Thank You TP
Common Sense Too
........... Part2 ............
Original Design
Convention
Two Party
Injustice
Unproper
Commerce
Bill of Rights
Recipe Tyranny
Expenditures
Common Sense Too
........... Part3 ............
Legacy
Spirit Taken
Protect Us
Traitors
Tolerance
Marriage
Taxation
Church State
Common Sense Too
........... Part4 ............
Gun Rights
Protect Life
Liberty
Tea Party
....American Spirit....
10th Amendment
Pledge Allegiance
Supreme Tyranny
Principles
Reagan Lives
E-mail KPR
Common Sense Too: Part 3
Free Speech Used by Traitors:
The following is just one example of American’s loss of resolve. The New York Times and reporters Eric Lichtblau and James Risen published a series of articles in 2005 concerning the U.S. government wiretapping of foreign phone calls to and from phones inside the United States in relation to the war on terror. When published these articles would obviously alert those who were being wiretapped to use alternate forms of communication as the U.S. government might be listening to them. These articles resulted in decreased security for U.S. citizens by degrading our intelligence gathering ability.
The New York Times and these two reporters decided that the U.S. government was more of a threat to the American people and their liberties than the Islamic extremist that we were trying to track down.
But instead of being charged with treason like they would have been if they had done this same thing during World War II, they were awarded a Pulitzer Prize. Here is a link to the Pulitzer Prize website where their series of articles are honored:
Pulitzer Prize 2006
Some may justify what the New York Times did as protecting the rights of American citizens from a tyrannical government and tyrannical voices such as mine. But in context of the terror inflicted on our country on 9/11 and the limits of these wiretaps to suspected terrorist calls to foreign phones, I would contend that the New York Times is not looking out for our individual rights, they are looking to use their first amendment protection of freedom of the press to advance their own socialistic secular progressive agenda.
Do you feel free and safe with the New York Times looking out for you? Or do you think the New York Times is trying to lead us to socialism and the loss of individual freedom? Do you think the New York Times would have published these articles if a Democrat was the President?
Our forefathers set up a constitution with the emphasis on controlling the tyranny of the government. This is understandable as they just emerged from the tyranny of a monarchy to form their own new government. They did not design the government to protect against a tyranny from within. Why would an electorate of free individuals vote away their own newly found freedoms? I suspect our founding fathers could not even contemplate this possibility.
My contention is that there should be no Bill of Rights in the Constitution. All rights, including free speech rights, start with individual people. Remember this passage from the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
We all have freedom of speech rights under a constitution that only allows the government limited specific powers that are granted to it from the governed. But individual sovereignty is only possible amongst those who respect that same right in others. Your right to individual sovereignty and free speech does not extend to treasonous speech that endangers the safety and sovereignty of your fellow Americans.
With the first amendment of our constitution many feel that anyone can say anything no matter how dangerous or offensive it is. How is it logical for a person to discuss instituting a form of government that restricts most rights while using his free speech rights to engage in that discussion?
You have the right to speak your mind when your discussion in turn respects the sovereign rights of others. You can discuss openly opposing views on how we can best reach the goal of maximizing the sovereignty of each person. But if you show that you wish to infringe on the Liberty and pursuit of Happiness of your fellow man through your words and your actions then you show a distain for the concept of rights and should not expect recognition of your own rights in return.
The Ku Klux Klan is given free reign to spew their hate and they are free to parade their message of intolerance under the protection of the first amendment. Under a form of government where individual sovereignty is balanced by the effect of that exercise on the sovereignty of others, the rights of the Klan would not be recognized as they do not recognize the rights of others.
Islamic Sects that wish to live in our country but at the same time enforce their Sharia Law amongst their followers can also find protection under the establishment clause of the first amendment. Under a form of government where the individual sovereignty of all is the law of the highest order, enforcement of Sharia Law would not be tolerated as this would violate the sovereignty of the individual.
Newspapers and writers can reveal wartime secrets that endanger American lives under the guise of the first amendment. They should be charged with treason as their words and acts have endangered the Life and Liberty of Americans.
The New York Times could have written an opinion article that wiretapping by our government on citizens in the U.S. is not a good policy even during a time of war as this gives our government too much power over our lives. This opinion article could have been a jumping off point for the people of this country to debate the issue and then use the results of this debate to form their basis for voting in the next election. Although I would strongly disagree with the Times on their stance I could at least see that they were striving to extend American’s freedoms by protecting us from a tyrannical government.
If the Times had revealed this program after the war on terror was over and the program had run its coarse then we could all view this as an exercise of free speech rights in a quest to control tyranny in our government. But to unilaterally decide to reveal this program rendering it useless during a time of war is Treason.
All rights have limits as your rights cannot infringe on the rights of others. You have the right to sovereignty over your own life as long as you do not infringe on the sovereignty of others. You have the right to keep and bear Arms, but you do not have the right to point your gun at your neighbor. You have the right to believe in the God of your choice, but you do not have the right to force that God on your community. You have the right to speak freely to discuss the best way to achieve Liberty for all, but you do not have the right to commit treason.
Our liberties can be taken by our government. Our liberties can be taken by foreign invaders. Our liberties can be eroded by treasonous acts from within. A strong government with limited power backed by patriots who respect individual sovereignty is the best balance to secure our freedoms. We must protect our government from treasonous acts just as we must stand up to our government when they violate our individual sovereignty.
The following is just one example of American’s loss of resolve. The New York Times and reporters Eric Lichtblau and James Risen published a series of articles in 2005 concerning the U.S. government wiretapping of foreign phone calls to and from phones inside the United States in relation to the war on terror. When published these articles would obviously alert those who were being wiretapped to use alternate forms of communication as the U.S. government might be listening to them. These articles resulted in decreased security for U.S. citizens by degrading our intelligence gathering ability.
The New York Times and these two reporters decided that the U.S. government was more of a threat to the American people and their liberties than the Islamic extremist that we were trying to track down.
But instead of being charged with treason like they would have been if they had done this same thing during World War II, they were awarded a Pulitzer Prize. Here is a link to the Pulitzer Prize website where their series of articles are honored:
Some may justify what the New York Times did as protecting the rights of American citizens from a tyrannical government and tyrannical voices such as mine. But in context of the terror inflicted on our country on 9/11 and the limits of these wiretaps to suspected terrorist calls to foreign phones, I would contend that the New York Times is not looking out for our individual rights, they are looking to use their first amendment protection of freedom of the press to advance their own socialistic secular progressive agenda.
Do you feel free and safe with the New York Times looking out for you? Or do you think the New York Times is trying to lead us to socialism and the loss of individual freedom? Do you think the New York Times would have published these articles if a Democrat was the President?
Our forefathers set up a constitution with the emphasis on controlling the tyranny of the government. This is understandable as they just emerged from the tyranny of a monarchy to form their own new government. They did not design the government to protect against a tyranny from within. Why would an electorate of free individuals vote away their own newly found freedoms? I suspect our founding fathers could not even contemplate this possibility.
My contention is that there should be no Bill of Rights in the Constitution. All rights, including free speech rights, start with individual people. Remember this passage from the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
We all have freedom of speech rights under a constitution that only allows the government limited specific powers that are granted to it from the governed. But individual sovereignty is only possible amongst those who respect that same right in others. Your right to individual sovereignty and free speech does not extend to treasonous speech that endangers the safety and sovereignty of your fellow Americans.
With the first amendment of our constitution many feel that anyone can say anything no matter how dangerous or offensive it is. How is it logical for a person to discuss instituting a form of government that restricts most rights while using his free speech rights to engage in that discussion?
You have the right to speak your mind when your discussion in turn respects the sovereign rights of others. You can discuss openly opposing views on how we can best reach the goal of maximizing the sovereignty of each person. But if you show that you wish to infringe on the Liberty and pursuit of Happiness of your fellow man through your words and your actions then you show a distain for the concept of rights and should not expect recognition of your own rights in return.
The Ku Klux Klan is given free reign to spew their hate and they are free to parade their message of intolerance under the protection of the first amendment. Under a form of government where individual sovereignty is balanced by the effect of that exercise on the sovereignty of others, the rights of the Klan would not be recognized as they do not recognize the rights of others.
Islamic Sects that wish to live in our country but at the same time enforce their Sharia Law amongst their followers can also find protection under the establishment clause of the first amendment. Under a form of government where the individual sovereignty of all is the law of the highest order, enforcement of Sharia Law would not be tolerated as this would violate the sovereignty of the individual.
Newspapers and writers can reveal wartime secrets that endanger American lives under the guise of the first amendment. They should be charged with treason as their words and acts have endangered the Life and Liberty of Americans.
The New York Times could have written an opinion article that wiretapping by our government on citizens in the U.S. is not a good policy even during a time of war as this gives our government too much power over our lives. This opinion article could have been a jumping off point for the people of this country to debate the issue and then use the results of this debate to form their basis for voting in the next election. Although I would strongly disagree with the Times on their stance I could at least see that they were striving to extend American’s freedoms by protecting us from a tyrannical government.
If the Times had revealed this program after the war on terror was over and the program had run its coarse then we could all view this as an exercise of free speech rights in a quest to control tyranny in our government. But to unilaterally decide to reveal this program rendering it useless during a time of war is Treason.
All rights have limits as your rights cannot infringe on the rights of others. You have the right to sovereignty over your own life as long as you do not infringe on the sovereignty of others. You have the right to keep and bear Arms, but you do not have the right to point your gun at your neighbor. You have the right to believe in the God of your choice, but you do not have the right to force that God on your community. You have the right to speak freely to discuss the best way to achieve Liberty for all, but you do not have the right to commit treason.
Our liberties can be taken by our government. Our liberties can be taken by foreign invaders. Our liberties can be eroded by treasonous acts from within. A strong government with limited power backed by patriots who respect individual sovereignty is the best balance to secure our freedoms. We must protect our government from treasonous acts just as we must stand up to our government when they violate our individual sovereignty.