Posted on 05/09/2014 1:24:45 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
America’s founders, largely distrustful of centralized power, created several checks and balances into the U.S. Constitution to help ensure that one person, or one group of people, would not be able to unilaterally exert his or their will over the American citizenry. First, the federal government itself was divided into three separate and distinct branches–each holding the capability (and responsibility) to check the power of the other. Second, the Bill of Rights was made part of the Constitution for the protection of individual liberties. Third, the “free and independent states” of the nation retained their sovereignty and independence after the central government was created (by the states), with the Tenth Amendment specifically recognizing their authority and jurisdiction over matters not directly delegated to the federal government.
It was also assumed that the freedom of the press and the freedom of religion would help the citizenry be sufficiently informed and inspired to keep the would-be despots at bay. And, of course, “We the People” are recognized as being the ultimate guardians of liberty by the recognition that “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” (Declaration) The “consent of the governed” was given teeth by the constitutional recognition of the people’s right to wield the power of the voting booth, the jury box, and, as a last resort, the cartridge box.
What has become increasingly obvious to a large segment of the American populace is the complete unwillingness of the national media to hold the federal government accountable. Neither do America’s pulpits provide the moral leadership necessary to maintain good government. The freedom of the press and religion accomplish precious little today in the safeguarding of liberty. And it is also absolutely clear that the three branches of government...
(Excerpt) Read more at westernjournalism.com ...
Very true.
Still, the situations I see in America [WRT the judiciary in particular, and the executive/legislative in general] are very saddening.
“America died silent death, no people marching in the streets to protest, no one standing to fight.”
You’re just not looking in the right places. Do you think that the media, who has a vested interest in the status quo, is going to show you that?
“The courts are supposed to be the institution that protects citizens against government abuses.”
No, they’re a bunch of unelected political hacks in black muumuus.
You paint with a broad brush, FRiend. There have been a few who have consistently criticized the gop and it’s embrace of statism. And in any case, donning a sackcloth and ashes is a pretty useless exercise at this point. We are where we’re at.
Actually, the Court is part of the government.
It's the doctrine of negative rights that's supposed to protect the people from the government.
I’ve always liked Pastor Baldwin, author of this piece. He thinks, writes, and speaks clearly. He continues to lead even when things don’t quickly turns. In that regard, he is a Jeremiah.
The American police state was seen clearly last month when America was suddenly shown that the Bureau of Land Management had it’s own army. It was a wake up call that even reached the major media. They were soon forced to back down, either by their handlers or by powers beyond that level. The public explanation they gave for losing focus on federal agencies with their own armies was ‘racism’. We know, even if Clive Bundy had done something wrong, that there is no connection between the behavior of one citizen and the BLM having an army (along with scores of other departments and agencies having their own armies.)
Why? Because we now have seen what “a standing army” is that the Founders were so strongly against. They are troops paid by the central government to point guns at you, your children, and your friends if you don’t comply with the Federal government’s every whim, whether illegal or not.
It seems important to keep this on the front burner now that so many of the people are now aware of SWAT teams pointing guns and destroying lives. It seems important to hear about every over zealous arrest, every quick-to-kill shot, and every power hungry grab of property, money, or resources.
And now we also need to be aware of every suspicious arrest as Pastor Baldwin points out. He is right. In this he is a Jeremiah who should be heeded.
I don’t see much point in donning the sackcloth and ashes at this point.
One thing I’m more willing to do, though, is listen to folks who I’m politically opposed to so long as they’re talking the language of freedom. When all is said and done, I really don’t give a rats rear about their political affiliation. I found it very interesting that both Noam Chomsky and Bob Marshall are involved in this lawsuit either as litigants or amici. You couldn’t pick two people with more different political affiliations.
The thing is, that when they get ready to come for you, you will be helping the Taliban or al Qaeda , whether you did or did not.
Unless the below is inaccurately stated, what exactly is the issue? This doesn’t appear to be a change from longstanding precedent, and doesn’t appear to affect either US citizens or the unaffected:
The high court left intact a July 2013 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that journalists and others who said they could be detained under the law, did not have standing to sue.
...
The appeals court said the challengers had no standing because they could not show the provision has any bearing on the government’s authority to detain U.S. citizens.
The court said the plaintiffs who were not U.S. citizens lacked standing to sue because they did not show “a sufficient threat that the government will detain them” under the provision.
The case is Hedges v. Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 13-758
*Sigh*
Unless things make a sharp 180 degree turn and soon, war is coming on us FAST. Either war or absolute totalitarianism.
And I hate both possibilities.
Metro wasn’t a buffer between anybody, They were up on I-15 directing traffic.
Sheriff Doug Gillispie told Bundy and his supporters the BLM was standing down. When Bundy went to retrieve his cattle, the BLM was waiting behind vehicles with weapons fixed on the protesters. The BLM withdrew after crapping in their shorts because their boss Daniel Love strategically placed them in a kill box.
Gillispie is a lying sidewinder in the pocket of Harry Reid and both should be criminally charged along with others for the attempted murder of the Bundy’s.
Actually, I'm betting that is wrong. I've not seen the actual text of the law in question in the article. I'm betting it wasn't so narrowly written that it applies only to this era and only to al Qaeda associates.
My guess is that it's more broadly written and allows the Fed to indefinitely detain "enemies".
So, who would Barack Obama be able to argue is an "enemy"? And down the road with another Obama type tyrant, when the well has become even more poisoned, what would 'enemy' mean then?
“They were soon forced to back down, either by their handlers or by powers beyond that level”.
They were forced into retreat by a well regulated militia, and they will never forget it. I know there are some good men in the alphabet agencies. The time is coming when they will have to make a very important decision. Stand with freedom or stand with tyranny.
I want them all to remember that Obama and his crew left four Americans abandon to a torturous fate in Benghazi.
The BLM handlers also placed them in a cauldron of death in the Nevada desert to be slaughtered. By the grace of God and a highly disciplined militia the BLM were allowed to leave that valley with their lives.
This is utterly unconstitutional, and the justices know it.
As soon as enough of the public gets word about Operation Zero Footprint.
No thanks to the legacy media, it is oozing out.
Is there a single file download for all of these?
Yes, it was a double cross/set up. Gillispie did announce an agreement had been made between BLM and Bundy and the cattle would be released and BLM would withdraw. Until then those there to support Bundy were only protesting.. After waiting an hour for the cattle to be released they went to get them as you said. That is a very important part of the equation. BLM made statements the next day that there was NO agreement and they released the cattle and withdrew for safety reasons.
If we had real reporters some of them would have dug into this to find out who was behind the set-up. Where did Gillispie get his info? Did he make that statement on his own or was he told that? By who? As far as Love putting his men in a dangerous spot, is he the one that decided where they would be or was that another part of the set up? By who?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.