Skip to comments.Tyranny: The Threshold Has Already Been Crossed
Posted on 03/25/2002 11:38:23 AM PST by 45Auto
Do we need any more evidence that corruption is the norm, not the exception in, not just the FBI, but all government?
I just finished reading a news story about the FBI trying to prevent the investigation of the shooting of an innocent person by an FBI agent.
The number of instances of "mistakes" made by government officials that are covered up, defended and lied about are too numerous to list. "Mistakes" that would put you or I away for a long time are not even punished if a government official commits them. From Bill Clinton all the way down to the local police department, government officials and employees are exempt from the laws enforced against you and me.
Government officials lied and obstructed justice in cases like the Branch Davidians in Waco, Ruby Ridge and many more. Even when wrongdoing or crimes were uncovered, the responsible parties went unpunished, protected by the government.
To see the root of the problem, we must first admit that the Constitution is no longer the controlling legal document of the United States. Currently, the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth amendments are null and void.
Here are some examples to prove it.
Campaign Finance Reform is a clear violation as political speech is what the Founding Fathers were protecting with this Amendment.
Restrictions on Practice of Religion are now government policy. Congress is barred from both endorsing and restricting the practice of religion. Separation of Church & State does not appear in the Constitution nor was it intended. The Founding Fathers often invoked religion in early legislation and as the foundation of the rights the constitution was written to protect.
The right to petition government for redress of grievances was recently shown to be void as the IRS and Justice Departments refused to answer We The Peoples (http://www.GiveMeLiberty.org) arguments about the legality of the Income Tax. They continue to enforce illegal policy and law by not answering to those that challenge it. Tax court judges have a financial interest in upholding such laws and generally will not allow a challenge to the law in court.
Licensing of gun owners, laws restricting owning & bearing arms, arbitrary banning of guns (cosmetic & function) are all infringements on the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is actually protected more than the First by its wording. The First Amendment states Congress shall make no law restricting only the Congress (not the states or people) from making laws restricting the ideas in the Amendment. The Second Amendment states shall not be infringed which doesnt restrict a specific body from regulating arms, it restricts ALL people or government, including state and local, from regulating or Infringing on the right.
Clearly, the requirement for licensing, restrictions on bearing arms and outright bans like in Washington D.C. violate this right.
To my knowledge, this is the only right enumerated in the Bill of Rights that has not been violated.
From warrantless searches, invasions of private property without proper warrants or probable cause, confiscation of private property without conviction, to lack of punishment for officials violating the Fourth Amendment, this one is void.
Police and Federal Agents routinely search people without a warrant or probable cause. While evidence collected during illegal searches is often thrown out of court, punishment for the officers responsible does not occur.
Officers also routinely lie to judges to get warrants, a violation of their oaths and requirement that they affirm under oath to their testimony when requesting a warrant. No punishment is handed out when officers lie in such circumstances.
No Knock warrants are high risk to both officers and the people targeted. They may be justified in some, highly regulated, circumstances. Unfortunately, they are used in cases where the subject is not a demonstrated threat and/or the charge is petty or minor. Often, it would be safer and easier to wait for the suspect to leave their residence or business and arrest them on the street where they are less able to barricade or defend themselves. David Koresh walked to town daily and could have been arrested on his walk instead of the violent attack on the compound that was perpetrated. His infraction was failure to pay a $200 tax a Class III firearm(s), firearms that were never recovered after the destruction of the compound. Charges of sex with children had been levied many times before and the Davidians were exonerated each time. The perpetrators of the Waco debacle were promoted, not punished.
Also reported are numerous cases of police serving a no knock warrant on the wrong house resulting in damage and the deaths of innocent people. The perpetrators in such cases are often given only reprimands if anything at all. If I, as a common citizen, shoot the wrong person, even while defending my life, I would be held criminally responsible for shooting an innocent person. The police are allowed to do worse without consequences.
Confiscation of private property without compensation, involuntary filing of tax return (providing possible evidence against you), double jeopardy (hate crime laws), and deprivation of liberty without due process, all violate the Fifth Amendment.
First of all, the Federal Government has no police powers when it comes to common crime. Murder, theft, rape and the rest are State matters. Treason, Bribery by Federal Officials and a very few other crimes are Federal in Jurisdiction. Trying people that commit murder, burn down buildings and lie to stockholders (Enron) in Federal court is unconstitutional. Federal jurisdiction is clearly defined.
Sheriffs in Florida and across the country routinely confiscate cash and personal property from vehicles pulled over on the nations highways. This property is confiscated even when no charge is made nor conviction made. Often, the property owner has to go to court, at their expense, to get the police to return their property. This is clearly deprivation of property without due process of law.
If you are tried for a sensational crime or a highly publicized crime and the powers that be dont agree when you are found Not Guilty, they will often charge you with a violation of someones civil rights in federal court. A crime is a crime, changing the name of the charge does not make it a different crime. This is double jeopardy and a violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Due process is violated all the time. How many stories have we read where someone is jailed without being informed of the charges against them. In some cases, their attorney couldnt get the charges told to them. Sometimes, a warrant is left blank until the search is complete. This allows officials to go on a hunt for anything to prosecute someone for.
Speedy trials no long exist. You can sit in jail for years waiting for your day in court if you cannot afford or are denied bail. You are also guaranteed an impartial jury of the State and district where the crime occurred. Many cases are moved to another jurisdiction where less publicity has occurred, violating this right. Getting an impartial jury is near impossible now also. First, the very process of jury selection allows the lawyers to pick jurors based on how they think they will rule. Second, jury instructions given by judges often include untrue statements such as you must judge the evidence and if you find the defendant violated the law, you must find him/her guilty. A jury actually has the right to judge the law itself and if they decide the law is unjust, they can find Not Guilty.
Jury Nullification was a time honored and respected activity up until the second half of the 20th century. We still have the right as jurors to nullify laws, but judges actually bar such information from their courthouses and courtrooms. They go so far as to deny the right in their jury instructions.
Accused are often not allowed to face accuser or witnesses. Recent cases deny the right of an accused rapist to confront the accuser because that might traumatize the victim. Another recent case had secret evidence the government claimed was a national security item. Thus, the accused could not even see the evidence against him, another violation of the Sixth Amendment.
You have the right to the Assistance of Council when you are charged with a crime. Unfortunately, the council supplied if you cannot afford to pay for quality council, has a burdensome caseload, is underpaid and sees you as a file on his/her desk. With high profile prosecutors in many jurisdictions, you cannot get a fair trial with the substandard defense many public defenders provide due to skill or workload.
Common Law traditionally requires an injured party and a party that created the injury. One must show in court how another violated his/her rights or deprived him/her of property by damage or theft.
Currently, one can file a civil case against anyone for almost anything, including a recently invented right to not be offended. In a county with free speech and the right to speak your mind, it is incompatible to recognize a right to not be offended. This does not release someone from liability if actual damage is done (Cross burning on lawn or Slander and Libel) but recognizes that personal opinions are going to offend certain others. Laws exist (common and modern) to hold people liable for slanderous speech and incidents like yelling Fire! in a crowded theater. Being offended by a sexist joke does not cause any actual damage to the victim unless it rises to the level of harassment, defined as repeatedly and purposefully continuing to commit an otherwise legal action with intent to harm (offend) after a request to stop in a place where the victim cannot voluntarily remove himself. In a workplace, the victims cannot voluntarily remove themselves without damage (loss of job, etc ) but in a bar, the victim can walk away thus avoiding the offending speech.
Unfortunately, current courts award victories and money to people that are offended by what should be protected speech. You could be held financially liable for telling your buddy a dirty joke in your own home, if another guest claims to be offended. No injury, real or imagined, need exist anymore.
A jury in a civil case is no longer impartial. In society, large corporations have been demonized to the point that juries award huge awards to people even when they dont think the company was responsible. The company can afford to help the victim is a common statement from a juror even when the juror admits the company didnt cause the injury. Again, an example of judges not explaining the rules or preventing prosecutors from telling the jury how rich the company is and how poor the victim is in an attempt to sway the jury regardless of the facts.
Bail is arbitrarily set, often very high for simple failure to follow the impossibly numerous gun laws while real threats like rapists and killers are set loose with low bail. Inherit a war trophy machine gun from your grandfathers tour during WWII and you could end up in prison. If you dont know the 20,000+ gun laws and accept the machine gun, not knowing you need to pay a $200 tax and get permission from the BATF and your local Sheriff, you can be imprisoned for a long time. In some places, if your father gives you an antique firearm, mounted on a plaque, you can be convicted if you dont register it. In both cases, your bail is likely to be set much higher than the street thug that just carjacked someone or the repeat home invader.
Most people charged with a failure to file all the appropriate paperwork or made an error filling it out are generally law abiding citizens that ran into trouble complying with the unwieldy amount of hoops they are required to jump through. They are generally not a flight risk, the true purpose of bail. Why then are the people least likely to jump bail given the largest bail amounts while street thugs that frequently jump bail and commit more offences while out on bail get small bail amounts?
The IRS imposes excessive fines for failure to pay your taxes or for errors, intentional or not, on your returns. In some cases, these fines compound rapidly, growing faster than the persons ability to pay. This makes the person a slave to the IRS for the rest of their lives. If that is not the definition of excessive fine I dont know what is.
Cruel and Unusual Punishment is a subjective standard. Some think the Death Penalty is excessive, some think a prisoner living in better conditions than our military people on a submarine is excessive punishment. There is room to argue on this right but no one can honestly believe that an otherwise law abiding citizen should spend 10 years in prison because they forgot they were carrying their licensed firearm when they voluntarily walked into a metal detector at a courthouse or airport. People make mistakes and the law should account for that. The law is supposed to punish intentional violations of the law. Voluntarily walking into a metal detector with a concealed weapon is evidence in itself that the person wasnt trying to violate the law. In fact, the offence harmed no one at all. No gun went into the facility and the person was not trying to get it passed the detectors. Punishing such an offense with 10 years in prison is quite clearly excessive and unusual.
The government now ignores this one and claims you have no rights (except to an abortion) not enumerated, even though the deny even those explicitly listed.
This single amendment is supposed to be a powerful statement warning the government that people have rights, natural rights that exist NO MATTER WHAT. It is supposed to tell the government that the rights listed are not the complete list and those not listed are just as important and off limits for government control.
99% of the federal government regulates or administers things reserved to the states or the people. The Department of Education, Department of Agriculture, Department of Transportation, FBI, BATF, IRS (do the research, the 16th amendment was NOT ratified by the states), and almost all the rest. Most of these functions were meant to be governed by the States or left to the people. The States were supposed to have very broad limits on what they do, including being able to put limits on some of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment specifically states Congress shall make no law This does not prohibit the States from regulating Speech, Religion, the press, the right to assemble or petition the government. The 14th Amendment does restrict the States from abridging these rights.
The entire balance of power within the government is out of whack. Each branch of government is both infringing on the powers of the other branches and exceeding their legal constitutional authority.
The Congress now holds "Trials" (Enron). The Senate doesn't advise and consent to Presidential Nominations, it controls them. The constitution says the Senate is to Advise & Consent, not a committee of the senate that doesnt allow the entire senate to advise & consent.
The Judicial Branch, instead of ruling yes or no on the constitutionality of a law, writes new law in its rulings to clarify poorly written law. Only Congress is authorized to make new law. A struck down law should be void until Congress clarifies or corrects problems, not redefined by the court.
The Executive Branch is bloated with unconstitutional departments and the Executive Order is the equivalent of a king dictating law without the Congress. Only Congress is authorized to make law. The President can veto a law but not create it.
The military is authorized to protect the US and its borders, that doesn't give it authority to police the world or push our beliefs on the rest of the world. The Founding Fathers did not want the US to act imperial. They had just fought against imperialism to win independence. Today, we find our troops all over the world risking their lives for UN mandates and police actions in countries that have no strategic importance to us. Compassion is great but its not legally authorized.
I am not necessarily against many of the functions the federal government has taken up. I am against the method they took them. The Constitution has a clear process to amend it. If you want the federal government to have the power to levy gas taxes and use the money to pay for roads, pass an amendment and get the states to ratify it. If you want the federal government to withhold Social Security Fees from your paycheck to pay you a monthly sum when you retire, pass an amendment. Instead, congress ignored the proper procedure and passed general laws that violate the limits placed on the government. The violated their Oaths of Office, the Constitution and the public trust. When the government doesnt follow the laws it is bound by or passed itself, the law doesnt apply to everyone equally, a violation of the 14th Amendments Equal Protection of the Laws.
The United States is not a "Free" country, nor is it governed by "The People." Only when a country founded on laws, follows those laws is it legitimate. All governments will cross the line from time to time and the people and/or laws will reign it back in. The US Government has entirely destroyed the line and the law is not enforced against it. This is defined as a "Police State" anywhere else in the world it occurs. We even send our troops to free people living in such conditions while pretending it's not happening here.
Is it too late? That's a tough one. Elected officials are no longer afraid of the law or the people. The people are uneducated and believe whatever ABC, CBS, NBC tell them.
Elections usually offer two candidates that both will violate their oaths, the Constitution and the public trust to get reelected by those that receive the benefits. They WILL do their duty if threatened with removal from office but the uneducated masses are too distracted by bread & circuses to take such action.
The threat of death or bodily injury is very motivational to do the right thing. Officials have created a security wall between themselves and the people, paid for by the people. They get ever closer to outlawing firearms each year. They eventually hope to eliminate the threat to themselves from the people so they can rule without the peoples consent and without any consequences. A politician that is afraid of the people knows he is not doing his job correctly. When the people are afraid of their government, the government is not being controlled by the people.
I think the gun owners have shown they have more restraint than they are given credit for. If we were the violent threat politicians and gun control groups claim, they would all be in hiding or dead by now. Let a group like the BATF go after abortionist for failure to fill out paperwork or for giving abortions to minors without parental consent and the liberals would be breaking windows and marching on Washington.
We have been too patient. We need to march on Washington and use civil disobedience to reform the government. EVERY major policy shift in government was instituted following a rash of civil disobedience, from equal rights, end of the Vietnam War, to Women's Suffrage.
I don't advocate taking up arms, although it is interesting that the Founding Fathers took up arms against the King for far less than we currently endure. One day, if marches, recalls and civil disobedience do not bring the government back into line with the Constitution, armed conflict will be necessary.
Considering how we lie down when confronted now, afraid to risk our fortunes or our free time, I don't think we have the fortitude to "sacrifice or lives, or families and our fortunes" to restore freedom like the Founding Fathers did. If we continue on our current path, we are not far from complete tyranny without a means to fight back. At that point, you will have nothing left to risk, the government having taken it away, and no way to fight your armed oppressors.
People appear to be waking up, seeing the big picture and getting upset with what they see. The numbers are small now but as each person begins to see and shares it with others, perhaps the tide will turn. It better happen quickly because the government has nearly completed the task of securing the vote of more than 50% of the people by purchasing their votes with tax rebates to people that dont pay taxes, government programs and other entitlement programs, including Social Security. With the Constitution being ignored and Majority Rule as the patriotic slogan, true democracy is here and when they become 50.1%, the rest of us will have no redress, no power and no tools to throw off the chains.
Can we take our country back to the limited Republic, operating within the contractual bounds of the Constitution? Never in the history of the world has a government given up power or increased freedom without an armed insurrection. America is a place of many firsts. Hopefully we can be the first to accomplish a peaceful return to the rule of law, but I am not holding my breath.
Short answer: Yes. Open to discussion.
I pray that you are wrong, while at the same time know that you are right.
Not without the "shall apply to the States" amendment it doesn't.
It is too late. The only thing that will save the country is a revolution. Whether it is a shooting one or not will be determined by the government. Should they decide to return to the Constition it may be a peaceful revolution, otherwise it will be violent.
You should never forget you're carrying a firearm. 10 years is excessive, however.
You should never be restricted from carrying a firearm.
Unless by a private property owner.
This bears repeating. One wonders what the outrage will be that finally causes us to rise up and destroy this monster that has come to control so much of our lives. I hate the idea that this will be necessary, but I know, know, that it will be.
I think we need only about 97% more.
I think we can prevail. We were challanged to do just that. The famous words, "A Republic, if you can keep it...." rings in truer today than ever before. And we can keep it. Thank GOD for the internet, the perfect means for the masses to communicate and formulate ways to fight the good fight. We have done it here. And we always WILL continue to do so. That is what we are about, in the end.
You betcha. Self defense is a right. Convicted felons who have served their terms, are equally entitled to arms for their defense. Anyone who cannot be trusted with arms for his own defense, should not be out of prison to begin with.
The criminally insane?
Unskilled by who's determination?
Then again, the issue of states and individual rights is not clear in the context of the Constitution. Article I, Section 10 spells out some rights states don't have, and Amendment 10 grants all other powers to the states, but this doesn't answer the question of what rights, if any, the states are bound to recognize. I would argue that allowing the states to recognize fewer rights of their citizens would be an ultimately destructive doctrine, because it would trade a single tyrant at the federal level for many tyrants within the states, as well as fatally undermining the idea of inalienable rights.
Bingo - the 2nd the way it was designed by the founders.
And I still couldn't sue them. It was all an "honest mistake," so they have immunity.
The thread was pulled because the article calls for civil disobedience and then brings up the possibilty of armed conflict being necessary. As you know, Free Republic does not advocate violence or an overthrow of the government. We also do not allow FR to be used for promoting illegal activities. Our protests are not civil disobedience. We've been very careful to abide by the law in all of our activism projects. If people on this thread start calling for armed conflict or other illegal acts, the thread will be permanently deleted. Otherwise I will let it stand. Thanks, Jim
This does not mean that it will be easy to achieve.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Not all the ten amendments have been able to hold that tyranny at bay -- for laws are mere words, unsubstantial without men to act upon them.
Yet even a population fully armed, and a number willing to use those arms against tyranny cannot not succeed against an established tyranny. The tyrannized Dutch fought a very long war against Spain -- generations came and went in that war. Spain was far the less than our modern Federal tyrants power in extent, in numbers, in every measure, far the less.
Fools the rebels at arms against the Federal behemoth -- fools not without good cause, but fools to even hope much less act in a vain way. Only the vanity of a fool is served in such waste.
There is one rule of close warfare in such circumstance and it has in History been successful again and again when applied.
That rule is simple. Well known. Seemingly the most trivial, and its inherent wisdom ignored for that simplicity. It is simple! Applied with persistance, however it is overwhelming, unbeatable.
If you can't beat them, join them.
If it is nigh forgotten by the current behemoth Federal tyranny, then let us join ourselves and our children to that behemoth to chew it up from its innards. Taking care to pass to our children what their true hertitage is, for in time to make it anew.
As it is apparent to all that a prince is constituted by God to be ruler of a people, to defend them from oppression and violence as the shepherd his sheep; andWe have not a Prince, but a whole pack of them -- the Senate, and lesser Jacks in the House, and spread throughout head offices under Mr. Bush.
whereas God did not create the people slaves to their prince, to obey his commands, whether right or wrong, but rather the prince for the sake of the subjects (without which he could be no prince), to govern them according to equity, to love and support them as a father his children or a shepherd his flock, and even at the hazard of life to defend and preserve them. And
when he does not behave thus, but, on the contrary, oppresses them, seeking opportunities to infringe their ancient customs and privileges, exacting from them slavish compliance, then he is no longer a prince, but a tyrant, and the subjects are to consider him in no other view. And
particularly when this is done deliberately, unauthorized by the states, they may not only disallow his authority, but legally proceed to the choice of another prince for their defense. This is the only method left for subjects whose humble petitions and remonstrances could never soften their prince or dissuade him from his tyrannical proceedings; and this is what the law of nature dictates for the defense of liberty, which we ought to transmit to posterity, even at the hazard of our lives. And
this we have seen done frequently in several countries upon the like occasion, whereof there are notorious instances, and more justifiable in our land, which has been always governed according to their ancient privileges, which are expressed in the oath taken by the prince at his admission to the government; for most of the Provinces receive their prince upon certain conditions, which he swears to maintain, which, if the prince violates, he is no longer sovereign.
This is the only method left for subjects whose humble petitions and remonstrances could never soften their prince or dissuade him from his tyrannical proceedings; and this is what the law of nature dictates for the defense of liberty, which we ought to transmit to posterity, even at the hazard of our lives.That was in their situation. Our recourse is different -- we have no recourse to "other" princes. We have ourselves and our kinders to chew up this behemoth, remembering the wisdom of 1581, "what the law of nature dictates for the defense of liberty, which we ought to transmit to posterity, even at the hazard of our lives."
People don't want to believe it but we are headed for a collision here in the not too distant future.