Você está na página 1de 4

WHAT WOULD A FREE MAN DO? I am having a debate with myself.

Question as a free man, what do I do when I see freedom being stolen? Not just my freedom but, the freedom of my family, my friends, and my acquaintances. It doesn't matter who is doing the stealing or what reason they claim for doing the stealing be it from either side of the Republicrat coin, for the good of the people or, to ensure our security. I know where my unalienable rights come from. Therefore, the government has no authority to tell me what I can think, do, or say in regard to those rights. They do not emanate from any court room. They do not emanate from any legislature. They most certainly do not emanate from any executive, regardless of his overblown sense of power, importance, or authority and regardless of how many directives, findings, or other attempts to circumvent the restrictions on his authority. So, limitations imposed on my unalienable rights by such self-important blowhards have no authority. But, then I must choose between being true to my belief that my rights do not emanate from any person or human agency or whether I will meekly accept the actions of those same foul persons or agencies to enslave me through their false authority. If I reject that false authority, how far am I willing to go to defend my rights? There are those who assert that the Constitution is a living document - that it is amenable to differing interpretations on different days by different people. Additionally, they argue that the meaning of the Constitution has changed over time since the founders were not able to see the problems that would emerge in our day and age. Therefore, they argue, we must see the Constitution from a view that incorporates societal, economic, and technological change which requires us to give up our freedom to secure our safety and to donate more to those in need. I reject all of that bilious crap. If they have the right to interpret the Constitution in any manner they deem appropriate then I, too, have that right. Which of us is correct? Or is the more accurate question, which of us is in the position to enforce our interpretation on the other? I would argue that to hold their perspective on the Constitution grants them the right to force that interpretation on any against whom they choose to direct that force, minimizes individual freedom, and permits the government to determine the rights of its citizens. My interpretation maximizes personal freedom and minimizes the authority of government and its power to impose itself on any citizen. I, for one, have no desire to force any other to accept my interpretation and understanding of the Constitution. I do, however, desire to be left to my interpretation and understanding and not be forced or coerced into accepting their determination of what is the correct interpretation or understanding of that document and how I should live my life. It appears that those of the opposite persuasion do not share the same consideration for my beliefs as I seem to have for theirs. But how does one defend one's rights and stop the constant assault against those rights? How does one defend against a system of government that has placed corporate well-being above the rights and sovereignty of the individual? How does one fight against the usurpations of a farcical legal system which condones those acts and provides the facade of authority? How does one fight against a legislature that wholly ignores the will of the sovereign authority of the people and the limitations imposed upon it by the document they falsely swear to uphold and defend? How does one work within the system against a government that no longer operates under the very law by which it was created and mandated to function and where that system is now corrupted and controlled by those who are out to destroy the Republic for their own purposes?

What does one do when the President of these United States demonstrates, on a continual basis, that he is: an operating, if not avowed, communist; an habitual liar; dedicated (proven through his actions, not his words) to the destruction of these United States; consistently and repeatedly violates the Constitution with impunity; does all that he can do, surreptitiously or not, to destroy the economy of the Republic, help his friends on Wall Street, within the Unions, and in the environmental movement to the detriment of the rest of the Republic; and, ignores the wishes of the people? What does one do when the legislature: is composed of persons who disregard the Constitution in favor of their own wealth, power, prestige, influence, and inflated sense of self; who often and repeatedly pass legislation which is designed and intended to further injure the rights, freedom, and sovereignty of those upon whom the very existence of this Republic is founded; who, although asserting allegiance to different parties, truly act as one and, in so acting, do increasing damage to the Republic for their own nefarious purposes; who will openly lie and conspire to attain and hold their most coveted possession that of an elected official; and, who march in lock-step with the corporate and banking interests which fund their political careers? What does one do when the judiciary: takes it upon themselves to legislate from the bench their twisted and perverse personal determinations of what law ought to be, in direct opposition to what the Constitution says the law is; interferes with the lawful self-determinations of the citizenry against an unchecked influx of illegal aliens which robs the citizens of their income, employment, and wealth through judicial fiat asserted to support these illegals through unconstitutional mandates of providing lower-cost education, housing, and medical care than that afforded to citizens; which refuses to hold the federal government to the restrictions imposed upon it by the Constitution; which refuses to hold federal personnel to the requirements of law which ordinary citizens are repeatedly subjected to; which consistently and continuously interferes with the rights, freedom, and sovereignty of the citizens in favor of the banking and corporate elite; which refuses to reign in the power mad law enforcement agencies throughout the federal, state, and local governments subjecting the citizens to escalating danger from those sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution and the laws by which they derive their authority and duties; and, which refuses to hold accountable anyone involved in government (except those who stray from the party line) for their illegal actions? My argument, so far, has been general. Predicated on generalities nothing can be truly decided, for one who makes his decisions based on generalities is always prone to be bitten in the ass by specifics he does not consider. Therefore, here are just a few of the specifics I have considered as of late: JFK assassination. RFK assassination. MLK assassination. Gulf of Tonkin. Vietnam War. Denial of Agent Orange. USS Pueblo. USS Liberty. Angola. NAFTA. GAT. MexAmeriCanada. Nicaragua. Pan Am 103.

Arrow Air, 12Dec85. Waco, TX Ruby Ridge, ID. Oklahoma City bombing. WTC Bombing. 9/11. DHS. TSA. Patriot Act. Rwanda. Somalia. Afghanistan. Iraq. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205. Obamacare. $700 BILLION stimulus to the commercial interests of BANKS and WALL STREET! SOPA. PIPA. NDAA. ACTA. Keystone Pipeline. Mercury light bulbs. Chem trails. Use of military against citizens. Increased murdering of citizens by rogue cops accepted by courts. Increased spying on citizens by various governmental agencies accepted by courts. Increased interference/dilution/negation of sovereignty, rights, and freedom of citizens. Increased refusal of federal government to comply with Constitution. Fusion centers. FEMA camps. FEMA rendition centers. TSA. TSA roadblocks. Poisoned vaccines. Fluoride. GMO foods. Poisoned water. Poisoned foods. Confiscatory taxation. Treason by the Federal government (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches). State government's which refuse to stand against the usurpations of the Federal government. Local government's that conspire with state and federal governments to turn their local police and sheriff's departments into Nazi SS detachments militarily supported by the federal government. Support of murderous dictators throughout the world. Refusal to arrest, try, and imprison the bankers and brokers who have been robbing us blind for centuries. Does one simply refuse to participate any longer and tell the government (at all levels) to shove their Nazi dictatorial egos up their collective asses and then sit idly by and wait to be dragged off to be

forced to stand before one of their farcical courts for a show trial where the judge will lie to any jury one might be permitted to have and declare himself to be the arbiter of the law instead of granting to that jury the authority it truly has to be the final determiner of justice? And then, accept their court's determination that one must serve time in one of their prisons for having the audacity to stand against their usurpations? Or, does one stand on one's principles and beliefs that the government, when it operates against the people who are its sovereign authority is no longer the government of the people, by the people, or for the people but, is in rebellion against one and all citizens, and, therefore, is subject to replacement by force, if need be. If so, is one obligated to tell them that one will no longer accept them as their government and that if the government attempts to compel acceptance that force will be employed to repel their attempts? After all this, does one give them that benefit? Does one owe them that? Or does one simply act? And then, if necessary, fight against anyone who attempts to impose their personal dictates, or the dictates of their master(s), on one, personally, or on one's family, friends, acquaintances, and other citizens? The choice seems simple go out on one's knees or go out standing on one's own two feet. To do the latter will require leaving behind all that one knows and all that with which one is familiar. It is guaranteed that the moment the government identifies any person as a rebel, or more likely a terrorist, they will begin the process of harassing family, friends, co-workers, and associates. They will begin sniffing and tracking as far as they can like the miserable dogs they have become. It is also guaranteed, if one chooses to leave, that they will, eventually, find that person. What then? What would a free man do? I know what I will do. What will YOU do?

THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND! The Swamp Fox


February, 2012
2012 americanpatriotleague.com

Você também pode gostar