This Story is Archived
Contract with America: The Bill of Rights »
Posted by: populist 1 year, 9 months agoRead your Constitution and Bill of Rights, then read the text of the Patriot Act and the amended Patriot Act, then think about it. We the People of the United States have been virtually stripped of those freedoms that the founders of our nation fought so hard to secure from an earlier King George.
Read Full Story at populistamerica.com »
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 99
-
ETproductions
Dec. 2, 2006, 1:02 a.m.It's clear to me what is at the heart of the CON movement, fear. The liberals they love to characterize as Chicken Hawks are willing to fight if need be for our cherished rights. They aren't. They live in cowardice, fear and trembling; sure that any minute international terrorist (who lack a Navy, an Air Force and intercontinental missiles) are going to launch an assault on our shores. "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here." Yeah right. Last time they came, it was 21 guys armed with box cutters.
CONS are so cowered by this threat that they want to give the Government their rights (and ours). Thanks be to God America has awakened and stopped playing this cowardly game.
More...
-
ETproductions
Dec. 2, 2006, 1 a.m.I will hazard a guess that the CONS fear is rooted in a lack of understanding of history. Throughout history, international terrorist have killed just a tiny handful of people. Governments, on the other hand, have routinely slaughtered, tortured and falsely imprisoned hundreds and hundreds of millions of their own people. Hitler, Stalin, Pol-pot, Mao... The list is VERY long and VERY bloody.
If the CONS are such cowards, how come they can't understand what really threatens their safety?
-
-
Centinel
Dec. 2, 2006, 12:13 p.m.Luck has nothing to do with it. Liberty is not free. We The People must work for it. Lazy cowards are not the answer. I have been fighting this fascism for about thirty years in the courts, writing articles, writing letters to government representatives, bureaucrats, etc. I have learned to use their law against them. I have taken back my individual identity and deprived them of their "corporate" authority over my "person". And last but not least, warned them that if they attempt to violate my "unalienable" rights they may well have to pay the ultimate price. In other words: I am willing to die fighting for them. Are they willing to die in the attempt to take them? This is no idle threat. it is a warning to the would be tyrants. I know I am only one person but if more or even a minority of the population would do the same, much of the theft of liberty would cease. The government should be in fear and awe of the people. Not the other way around.
-
-
FrankieT
Dec. 2, 2006, 11:15 a.m.I totally agree that preserving our rights in the constitution should be something Republicans and Democrats work together on for all of us they are supposed to serve. (Not by going to Washington and assisting in reducing our rights and increasing their power over us.)
Ciao
-
zman
Dec. 2, 2006, 11:24 a.m.Since the fervor that allowed the Patriot Act to happen has passed, it is now time to repeal it and eliminate the rollback of our Constitutional Rights. We are a (3) Branch Govt and not one should have such overriding Power.......as we've seen recently in our own time, it leads to corruption and misuse.
-
walden3
Dec. 2, 2006, 11:41 a.m.nothing less than aticles of impeachment will suffice. more than 50% of the citizenry favors it, but there is a virtual media blackout on the subject. there can't be any talk of the "I" word by the commoners.
-
mntnman444
Dec. 2, 2006, 11:56 a.m.I support the Contract With America...
as opposed to the Contract ON America...the republicans response to a third party (Perot) getting more than 2% of the vote.A strong showing from a third party is the only way we can get these clowns attention.
-
amazed
Dec. 2, 2006, 12:05 p.m.This article provided links to a website that had the bill of rights and constitution -- which I have already read, thank you, but no link to the text of the Patriot Act.
I can't read it if I can't see it. Anyone have a link?
-
Matteu00
Dec. 2, 2006, 12:20 p.m.Stripped of rights by the people calling themselves patriots. Sounds like an old formula that has been used many times in the past by many countries. And the cowards who scream for big government to protect them by taking their rights are no safer today than in 2001.
Our elected officials swear an oath to defend and protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. Not to do so is treason.
-
Centinel
Dec. 2, 2006, 12:25 p.m.You could not have hit the nail more squarly on the head!
GWB and many other "politicians" should be considered TRAITORS!
What Higher crime could their be?
-
-
JenMurdock
Dec. 2, 2006, 12:24 p.m.IMPEACH BUSH, and make sure he doesn't have access to that silly ol' Habeas Corpus. Heck, Bush thinks habeas corpus is just a medical term for a dead body anyway....
-
rrrtx
Dec. 2, 2006, 12:24 p.m.Interesting summary of the Bill of Rights but nothing to support the assertion that the Patriot Act has destroyed these rights. How many more times do I have to hear someone declare that the Patriot Act is destroying my rights without a shred of evidence to support it?
This is just hysterical sensationalism. Just like all of the fear mongering leading up to the election. GW is going to steal the election. We are on the verge of dictatorship. This is a fascist state. You just wait and see. This stuff falls in the same category.
-
walden3
Dec. 2, 2006, 12:35 p.m.you concerned about the government trolling our internet, emails, phone, banking and libary records without so much as a smidgeon of suspicion?
-
dlbailey
Dec. 2, 2006, 12:48 p.m.Have you read the Patriot Act? You do not need any more evidence than just reading it. Or do you just listen to FOX TV and Rush and let them tell you about it? If you read it, all of it, you should quake in fear. And no, I am not a bleeding heat liberal. In fact, I always hated the American Civil Liberities Union..........until I read the Patriot Act. Now, I am a member of the ACLU. As a former soldier who loves this country, the Patriot Act scares me and should scare you. I did not serve my country to have the government take away the rights I proudly served to perserve.
-
ETproductions
Dec. 2, 2006, 1:06 p.m.Here it is in entirety on the Library of Congress site. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:4:./tem Read it and compare it to the Bill of Rights. What more "evidence" do you need than the words of each document?
For discussions of the strengths and problems of the act, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act
For a list of potential incursions into Constitutional rights, see ACLU Fact Sheet on Surveillance under the USA PATRIOT Act at http://www.aclu.org/safefree/resources/17343res200
This is not a debate about whether we should just ignore terrorism or pursue it. Please don't trot out that tired old straw man again. This is about whether we can save freedom by abandoning it. Is our cowardice so deep that we need a Stalinist regime to "protect" us? Is it really impossible to effectively monitor terrorist intercepts under the old FISA rules?
-
populist
Dec. 2, 2006, 2:08 p.m.anyone who thinks this is "sensationalism" can simply read the bill of rights, which is pretty loud and clear:
http://www.populistamerica.com/bill_of_rights
oh, and then go look up the patriot act and it's hundreds of pages of "law"
make up your own minds.
-
markmawn2
Nov. 29, 2007, 4:47 p.m.Apparently they have not "disappeared" you yet.
If someone with your exact name uses a credit card to purchase something they deem "suspicious", then all persons with your exact name are suspects. They WILL disappear you.
-
-
mntnman444
Dec. 2, 2006, 12:42 p.m." If tyanny and oppression come to this land,it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy"
- James Madison
-
spkguy
Dec. 2, 2006, 12:54 p.m.The men who create power make an indispensable contribution to the Nation's greatness, but the men who question power make a contribution just as indispensable, especially when that questioning is disinterested, for they determine whether we use power or power uses us.
John F. Kennedy
35th president of US 1961-1963 (1917 - 1963)
-
samsara15
Dec. 2, 2006, 12:54 p.m.The American people no longer care about freedom. All they care about is security. And which faction is it that claims they love liberty and despise Big Government because it is too intrusive?
-
THOMNH62
Dec. 2, 2006, 1:03 p.m.the bill of rights and constitution fits your needs when you see fit, if we are now going to follow the constitution then I should be ale to carry a gub abywhere in the country. You can't pick and choose, make up your mind
-
populist
Dec. 2, 2006, 2:10 p.m.exactly. we can't pick and choose. rights are inherent and inalienable.
why do you claim that anyone here is "picking and choosing?"
-
markmawn2
Nov. 29, 2007, 6:05 p.m.So why is carrying a gun so important as a demonstration of rights? Why such a gun focus? I sense that NRA has worked it's magic on the American psyche, that the sum total of our freedom relies on our ability to carry armed weapons to the grocery store. Very sad, and again demonstrates how un-free we are and to not really think our own thoughts, but rely on committees and organizations to make those determinations for us.
-
-
walden3
Dec. 2, 2006, 1:18 p.m.spkguy-
yeah. the one that always gets me is thast libs are called the big mommy loving government group, but yet it's this new breed of repubs that always believe whatever the government says and never think that the goverment makes a mistake kicking in a door or locking someone up.
if repubs hate the govenment so much, how come they put so much trust in it when it comes time to impeding our rights?
that is why i, if i do seem immodest about it, am proud that i coined the term bipolarrepublicanism. they say one thing and do another or support incompatible positions like spreading freedom abroad and reducing it at home. fiscally conservative while putting our kids', kid's, kid's in hawk to the chinese. it really is nuts.
-
walden3
Dec. 2, 2006, 1:24 p.m.thomnh62-
come on oh great faceless one. i am a proud gunowner but you must see the necessity of restricting people from carrying in someplaces like schools and courts. reasonbleness for government actions is usually the touchstone.
the problem i have is with the govt keeping a record of who is a gunowner. in the event that we really need them the first thing evildoers will do is to go to the govt building and lookup the records of who owns what so that their firearms can be seized.
after katrina the police seized people's guns just as all hell was breaking loose and the govt was unable to protect anyone.
-
mntnman444
Dec. 2, 2006, 1:39 p.m.walden
I lived in Mass ,now I'm in the most republican state in the country.Besides thinking that Ted K is Satan,the people here have the belief that if a liberal ever gets power,the govt will immediately take away everyones gun.LMAO!!!
I always assure them that there ARE guns in mass,maybe you can back me up here.
-
-
mntnman444
Dec. 2, 2006, 1:27 p.m.Off the subject for a minute,but if anyone would like to see a good movie about conservatives,liberals, the Supreme Court and the Constitution...before the neocons invaded,check out
First Monday in October...With Walter Mathau
-
mntnman444
Dec. 2, 2006, 1:45 p.m.And gun owners should realize that the instruments to take your guns are already in place,with a stroke of a pen the word guns could be inserted into the drug laws and the same reasoning used for drugs...they are dangerous to ones self and dangerous to society...hey...you hear that?...it's the cops,NOT knocking on your door.
-
eugenegerard
Dec. 2, 2006, 1:48 p.m.The Republican led neo-con movement's first and foremost intention from the beginning was to DISMANTLE the US Constitution. These horrible corporate fascists realized that the New World Agenda would be unattainable as long as the Bill of Rights and the American justice system were in place. Hopefully a lot of the damage these un-American traitors have done can be fixed. THEY are misguided dunderheads.
-
spectrum
Dec. 2, 2006, 2:06 p.m.If I understand the definition of dunderhead it indicates low intelligence. The people you identify with this term are far from that. Thay are brilliant and are impossible to resist. The fate of the BOR is sealed.
-
-
walden3
Dec. 2, 2006, 2 p.m.mtnman-
also, we don't make kids safer by shutting down pools, lakes, streams and watering holes. we teach kids how to swim.
the same holds true for firearms. it's only when things are mysterious and taboo that we run into problems.
be up front. teach kids the rules and they'll be a lot safer then just saying, 'no don't, off limits.'
-
mntnman444
Dec. 2, 2006, 2:07 p.m.LOL!!...I was a member of the NRA in a gun club bfore they went nutty.
-
-
dobaci
Dec. 2, 2006, 2:03 p.m.I find it interesting and ironic when Liberals start using the Constitution to advance arguments that fit their agenda (hating Bush). They want to be strict constructionists when it is to their advantage. But, when it comes to abortion or gay marriage as well as other intiatives they can't forward through legislation, they want the Constitution to be open to interpretation. You can't have it both ways. Make up your mind.
-
mntnman444
Dec. 2, 2006, 2:21 p.m.dobaci
Check the 9th and 10th amendments...gays already have the right to marry.The most "liberal" thing you could do is to change the Constitution to take rights away.
" The Constitution is not an instrument for the Government to restrain the People,it is an instrument for the People to restrain the Government"
-Patrick Henry
The same person who said "Give me liberty or give me death"
-
walden3
Dec. 2, 2006, 2:21 p.m.dobaci-
it's all about freedom. freedom to marry who you want, freedom to decide on your own medical care without the government getting involved, freedom of gun ownership
sounds like you may be against freedom. you want big mommy government to decide who should be allowed to marry who and what marriages are valid. seems like you want big daddy government to get between women and the doctors at a very vulnerable time in the women's lives.
do you support legalizing drugs, gambling and prostitution?
i do, with some controls of course.
-
dlbailey
Dec. 2, 2006, 2:23 p.m.Abortion has already been through legislation back in 1972. That was when Mr. Nixon was President. Maybe you do not remember that. So I do no think that has anything to do with the liberals and their intiatives today. Gay marriage is in issue is neither a liberal or cons. issue. It is a civil rights issue. How can we say some people can get married in this country and others cannot? It has nothing to do with interpretation or agendas. I am not saying I am a supporter of gay marriage but I support civil rights for all Americans. The Consititution does not say anything about marrying so how are liberals interpreting it to their advantage? I support the civil rights of all people. They are being eroded by this administration. It is not the liberals doing anything. It is Americans finally seeing what is going on in their Country and demanding their rights as Americans. Our fore-fathers and -mothers are turning in their graves! It's not Bush hating. It's demanding our American civil rights.
-
-
RedstateLib
Dec. 2, 2006, 2:16 p.m.What I find funny is that Conservitives when faced with facts that challange there positions they simply attack those that present the facts and refuse to discuss the issue on it's merits. Yep, I'm another LIBERAL, Gun owning, former soldier.
-
dobaci
Dec. 2, 2006, 2:20 p.m.Fact is..there is nothing in the constitution protectiing gay marriage or abortion. It wasn't a part of the lexicon in the 1770's.
-
-
walden3
Dec. 2, 2006, 2:31 p.m.the enumeration of certain rights isn't to be taken as the exclusion of other non-specified rights. the framers were very smart. they argued over the choice of each word like it was a scrabble game.
-
-
The first 83 comments are shown. Show all 99 comments »
Submitted By:
populist
The essays we offer are unapologetically presented for you to read & analyze. Many are offered as a similar view to ours & others simply to invite ...
Also submitted:
