Posted on 09/05/2001 1:15:28 AM PDT by Movemout
I recently received an e-mail from someone who has sent me a lot of good information in the past, and one of the things he deduces from the marked increases in government atrocities against citizens is that the government has "declared war" on us. They're taking our property, filing bogus charges against people they don't like, burning our homes while claiming we're criminals, but usually without proof we are and claiming we "torched" our own property for some unknown reason (This is becoming part of their "modus operandi." They used it at Waco where they burned almost 100 people including a bunch of innocent children and they're now using it in Santa Clarita, California, where they burned one man to a crisp in his own home.). They're taking our property on spurious excuses, violating our constitutional rights with impunity, and many other things. One of the things he noted is that the simple fact is that governments derive their inherent power from restriction and control. They get that by first conditioning you to accept that restriction and control by always having a "plausible reason" for each new incursion on your rights.
The important thing here is that they don't just "all of a sudden" enforce new laws and regulations that take away large gobs of your rights all at once. They know this would cause you to "rise up in anger" and take them down. The most important thing is for you to "remain asleep" while they "nibble" at your rights, little by little, in such small bites that you don't even notice or, if you do notice, you have been conditioned not to care. We call this "incrementalism." Most of their incursions on out rights are small, and they always seem to happen to "the other guy."
No one notices except that "other guy," and by himself, he is too small to matter. They "single us out" for action against us, ignoring our constitutional rights and proceeding as if they do not exist. They rely on the fact that others have been too well conditioned by previous events to object. They've been working on us for years, teaching us that we're just "part of a large group" when it comes to conning us out of our money and property, but we are all individuals when it comes to the government just taking it.
They "single us out" and take unilateral action against us, one by one, and we don't even have to do anything they don't like in order to become a target, although that helps. Each case tends to become "an example" to others that it doesn't pay to oppose them. There are exceptions to that, as witness the shutting off of irrigation water to 1,400 farmers in Klamath Falls, Oregon. Water that the government originally used as an enticement for them to move there and begin farming years ago by promising that the water would be theirs to use "in perpetuity." That they have gone back on a "solemn promise" is nothing new to the power seekers in this, or any government. The "solemn promise" is just a tool they use to get what they want. They make it, then wait until those they made it to have forgotten it was made (through senility or death), then violate it, claiming it was never made or just ignoring claims that it was.
Here are a few of the things they're doing:
MAKING "SOLEMN PROMISES, THEN VIOLATING THEM: This is how they overcome opposition to their plans. When Franklin Delano Roosevelt (He was the longest-serving president we ever had, remember? The one who moved this country further toward socialism than any other before him. The one who conned us into that pyramid scheme we call Social Security and literally created the welfare state, making a large segment of the population dependent on government, therefore guaranteeing their loyalty.) He was promoting Social Security as the answer to all our problems, he got a lot of stiff opposition from people who violently objected to the whole concept, but mostly to the issuance of a single, unique number for each of us and requiring us to have it. These people insisted that this number was a mechanism by which they could keep close track of us all if it were ever used as a "universal identifier." So what did he do? He made a "solemn promise" that this number would never be used that way. It would be used for one purpose, and one purpose only: to keep track of the money you pay into the "Social Security Trust Fund" and your "Social Security Account." They even printed, right on the Social Security card: "Not to be used for identification." Unfortunately, they didn't make that usage against the law, surprise, surprise! For a few years (about 30) they even honored this by not allowing people to use it as an identification card for anything but Social Security.
Then they began using it for tax purposes, saying that since Social Security "contributions" were collected along with your taxes, it was proper. At the same time, they started numerous databases using this number as the identifier. They also encouraged credit reporting companies and even simple private business to demand and use this number as the "file number," basing their entire file-keeping system on it. They have forced banks to collect and use that number when you open a bank account. Today, you can hardly do anything without having to fight off demands for that number. One of the common "excuses" for why you shouldn't mind is that "so many people have it, it's stupid to refuse to give it." My answer to that is that I'm going to stop it right here as far as my Social Security number is concerned. The Klamath Falls situation is just one more example of a "solemn promise" forgotten. I call this the "Thirty-Year Promise."
WEAKENING THE CONSTITUTION: Has anybody noticed that the average liberal says that the Constitution is "outdated" and has no effect on modern-day life? That it's just an old paper written by a bunch of rich landowners designed to keep "the common people" down while retaining certain rights for themselves? They say that it is a "liquid document" that can be ignored, since it has no consequence today, and they ignore it with impunity, since they own the courts. Studies have shown that in the last 40 years there have been more liberal judges appointed than conservatives, guaranteeing them control. "Judicial activism," where the judge rules, not by the law or the Constitution, has become a major problem for which there is no remedy under today's laws.
WEAKENING THE LANGUAGE: There is no law if the very words used to make the law are subject to "definition." Rush Limbaugh is fond of saying "words mean things," and he's right. But they attempt to use "subjective logic" to make sure that words mean what they want them to mean. Under subjective logic, "there are no absolutes." That means that words can be made to mean whatever you want them to mean and those "enforcing" the law can "define" that law to suit themselves. They use "political correctness" to allow themselves to define the very words we use in debate. This is slowly destroying our language.
ATTACKING THE FAMILY: They must condition our children to accept collectivism if they are to be able to advance their plans in the future. Collectivism is the philosophy of choice for those who want power over the rest of us. It conditions us to accept the idea that the government, not the individual, is the "seat of power," in opposition to what the Constitution says. They must be able to do this without the opposition they have encountered from parents. So to destroy the family and the rights of parents, they created the fiction that child abuse was "rampant in the land," and that we must take extraordinary measures" to combat it (the old Hegelian Principle: Create a problem, publicize it, then offer a "solution" which advances your goals). They made laws that basically take away the constitutional rights of parents and strip from them the right to object when their children are stolen and sold. When they're worried about that, they can't object to the conditioning that's going on in the schools.
ATTACKING THE CHURCH: They've attacked the church by using one of the Founders' most cherished concepts, the "separation of church and state." They claim it is part of the Constitution, but it is not. They've used it to make prayer in school or in any public place a crime. They're slowly destroying religion as a concept by limiting the places in which it can be practiced -- in the name of keeping state and religion separate. The Constitution prohibits the government from "making any law regarding religion or the practice thereof." But they use the "separation" concept therein promulgated as "permission" to make laws regarding religion and the practice thereof." They've tried to make sure that no church person ever advances a political opinion (unless they're black or liberal, of course) or they face the possibility of losing their tax exempt status or becoming subject to a tax audit and confiscation of their property.
ATTACKING THE MILITARY: The military is dealt with in one of several ways: first, reduce their funding, which has been effectively accomplished, mostly by the Clinton administration lately. Then they attempt to discredit them by painting them as "hawks" whose only reason for being is to "go to war," and who are useless in peacetime. They ignore that the biggest reason it is "peacetime" is because the military is there. They attempt to weaken the moral fiber of the military by forcing upon it the requirement to accept gays and women into their general ranks. They're doing a good job of that.
DISARMING THE POPULACE: If you want to control the population of a given country, you can't have them armed. You must use any excuse to disarm them, and that's what they're doing, day by day, in small ways. They have gotten a big boost lately by the little spate of school shootings they've "spotlighted" in the news, from Columbine on. They're painting a picture of "school violence gone mad," while ignoring the fact that mass school shootings are only a "once-in-a-while thing," usually always done by people no gun law would stop anyway. They "spotlight" every instance of gun violence and take every opportunity to vilify guns, not gun users, while playing down the millions of instances where honest people use licensed guns to defend themselves. They're scared to death of the fact that so many states have passed "must issue" concealed carry laws and have become determined to stop that trend. Like most criminals, they want to be pretty sure that the honest, law-abiding person they come to rape will not meet them with a gun. Of course if they do, they just kill them and "whitewash" the murderer as they did with Ismael Mena in Denver.
SINGLING YOU OUT: They "single you out" and isolate you from the community before attacking you if you are "targeted" for destruction. In the Klamath Falls water situation, they've just singled out Barbara Martin, an outspoken activist there, by putting a restraining order prohibiting entering the headwaters area against her, something she hasn't even offered to do. This is the "opening gun" in efforts to discredit her. They'll use this restraining order later as "evidence" that she's a "violent person" and needs to be restrained. This is what they did with James Allen Beck in Santa Clarita, California, where they attacked his home on their usual minor charges, in retaliation for his suit against them for harassment after they tried for the third time to prosecute him on the same charges and failed. They came with many men and lots of guns, and when the man responded with gunfire, set his house on fire with tear gas canisters (as they did at Waco), allowed the fire department to pour water on the houses next door, letting his house burn down while they kept him from exiting so he burned to death. Burning him so badly they had a problem finding and identifying a body. His own neighbors gave interviews to the press (after the fact, of course,) saying that they "thought" there was something wrong with him after being conditioned by federal agents on the scene. Others have been similarly singled out, some to be killed, others to be prosecuted on spurious charges with the judge keeping them from being able to present evidence vital to their defense. That's what happened in the Peter McWilliams case, discussed elsewhere.
THEY JUST KILL YOU: When all else fails, they just kill you. Randy Weaver found that out at Ruby Ridge, Idaho when they came in to arrest him on a small, trumped-up charge of not having a license to alter a shotgun (who a federal snitch hired him to alter) and they killed his wife through a door while she was holding his infant child in her arms. Lon Horiuchi, the criminal with a badge that murdered her, was recently absolved of responsibility for that murder by the 9th Circuit Court, which ruled that he was able to execute her legally because he was "following orders" from higher authority and he was a "law officer." A best-selling author of books about the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes, Peter McWilliams was effectively murdered by the feds, who knew he needed marijuana to be able to keep down the medicine that kept him alive, arrested him illegally and denied him the use of it as a condition of his parole. He was soon found dead, drowned in his own vomit. No charges were ever filed against the perpetrators in his murder. There are many other such stories, but these will suffice as examples. How are they able to do this? We allow it.
We allow it because we are conditioned to accept it. They've taught us that, as individuals, we have no power to resist. They have unlimited resources (our money) to use in fighting any effort we make to stop their excesses while we have little. Even if an individual has resources, they use the RICO Laws to confiscate them, leaving us defenseless before their unlimited resources. Since they don't have to have anything but a suspicion of wrongdoing to do that, it is very effective in disarming us in court. They've conditioned us not to resist over the years by teaching us that "one person" has no power to resist, and by doing everything they can to keep us from coming together as a "gathering of individuals" to oppose them. They make it very expensive to do so.
Consequently, we just try to ignore their criminal operations because they've taught us well. We think we can't do anything about them because they have all our tax money to use to oppose us, they can take our possessions by just saying we're engaged in illegal activity so we have nothing left to finance opposition, and even our neighbors can easily be turned against us, themselves being subtly conditioned by being given false information. So the largest percentage of the populace tries valiantly to ignore what they do, leaving them to their criminal operations without a lot of opposition, fearing that they will become the target of the government.
This is the way totalitarian governments (or would-be totalitarian governments) work. They single us out and bring the massed might of our own tax money to bear on us. People then try to ignore what they're doing, hoping they'll rape them last or that they can live out their lives before their government notices them. People who are opposing the government power seekers (not the government itself) call these people "apathetic." But it's not apathy. It's "protective stupidity."
In his classic book, "1984," George Orwell described what the "Thought Police" called "Crimestop." "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, (English Socialism, or in our case, simple socialism) and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity." It strikes me that today's liberal dupes are practicing Crimestop.
They subconsciously hope this will keep them safe, but it won't. The only safety lies in numbers. They must "come together" with other individuals and oppose the power seekers legally with large numbers of individuals who no longer buy their bullpuckey. The power seekers criticize people like me who profess to be "individualists" by asking how "individuals" can "come together" without becoming a "group." My answer is simple: there's nothing wrong with individuals becoming a group, so long as they are so by their own decision, not the decision of a government "agent."
We have to stop "knuckling under" to these people. We need to spend time learning all we can about their scams, schemes, and hustles until we no longer "buy" their stories and stop allowing them to rape us with impunity, slowly drawing the "noose" tighter, little by little, in small doses so we don't notice. We need to stop giving them permission to enslave us by opposing them at every turn, before each scheme gets strong enough that we can no longer oppose it. The American public is a "sleeping giant" who could slap them aside if we would just wake up and do it. Wake up, people!
Oops, time for my nap, come on strela, I think your cot is right next to mine.
Sweet dreams.
I just did. And, if you would bother to do a simple search on this thread, you would see that I was quoting both of those posters. As in "their words, not mine."
Apparently, the concept of "simple" (as in simple logic, simple obedience to the law, simple membership in society) is one that constantly escapes you. What a sad life you must lead.
Isn't it just about nap time at Romper Room? Now hush and let the adults talk.
You quoted Texasforever, genius.
I notice he hasn't come back to defend his rants and outright misrepresentation. Hmmmm...
Paul Johnson is always a good read, and A History of the American People is no exception.
JBT: Kick Kick
Citizen: Who's there?
JBT: Reno's Raiders. Why won't this door kick in?
Citizen: Chill out. It's triple steel with a kevlar core. Bought it on special at Home Depot last week.
JBT: Drat. Throw your weapons outside and come out with your hands up.
Citizen: We don't got no weapons. We stand alone on the WoG. Where's your warrant?
JBT: We're working on it but we have to find out what charges to trump up against you. It's in the works and will be backdated by our people under the multi-purpose clause of Executive Order #1010011010. That's 666 in binary for you dumbed down sheeple. Resistance is futile. Come out with your hands up.
Citizen: No, no, we won't go. We be knowin' our rights.
JBT: In that case we'll have to burn you out. I've got my bic flamethrower here and I'm going to flick it. Where's your wic?
Citizen: We burned our wic card cuz we don't believe in no government handouts no more.
JBT: Damn. That sounds like treason. In that case we'll huff and puff and blow your house down.
Citizen: Who died and made you de big bad wolf?
JBT: Sorry guess we got the wrong house.
NO, apparently the concept of "hypocrisy" escapes you. Let me spell it out for you. You are a hypocrite.
You would NEVER call anyone names.
Do not pass go. Go directly to jail.
I believe that what you are saying is correct. I have thought this many times myself.
I considered it a rhetorical question, yes they are and we lost. period.
If anybody thinks this genie is going back in the bottle, they are just not paying attention.
We have your SSN#, we know where you live,
we know how many kids you have, hell, you even give them to us 7 hours a day,
we know what you drive, we know where you work and how much money you make,
we can record for future reference, every site you visit, every word you type on owlgores wonderful invention.
Check-Mate
strela, all you've been doing is attacking people on this thread. You belch out obnoxious statements to rather intelligent posts. Then you feel that everyone else is the idiot. Don't you know that there are many out there like you. Hate to tell you this ... but most intelligent people try to ignore them. That is why you are getting the reaction that you see here. Though I understand that the psychology of your demands attention, negative as it may be.
Check-Mate
Now knowing the above, don't you think your average "rebel" would just be better off to shut the hell up, sit back, crack open a cold one and just see how this plays out?
You don't believe that, I hope.
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.