Tagged: bill of rights Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts
September 21, 2009
Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.
To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.
The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.
However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.
The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.
This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.
If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed “acceptable” to the “Health Choices Administrator” appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a “tax” instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn’t work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the “due process of law.
So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn’t stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;” The 10th Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.
I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to “be bound by oath or affirmation” to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.
For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source. Here is a link to the Constitution.
There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.
September 12, 2009
Let’s face it, Obama’s propaganda talking heads at MSNBC hate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. David Shuster in particular hates the Constitution, as the clip below demonstrates.
He believes the Tenth Amendment is “baloney” — even as he utilizes the First to denounce it — and says Article I, Section. 8., Clause 1 of the Constitution permits the government to confiscate the wealth of Americans for the purpose of Social Security, Medicare, and apparently for an oversized military that has initiated two invasions and occupations, adventures self-described liberals opposed when Bush was in office and support now that Obama is warming a seat in the Oval Office.
Shuster probably does not know it — because his primary role is to have perfect hair and read a teleprompter — but all taxes “collected” (at gunpoint) go for the interest on the staggering national debt (over the $1.75 trillion officially reported for fiscal 2009) owed to a criminal gaggle of international bankers and not to the principle let alone government “entitlement” programs. In the four years from January 2004 to January 2008, the Medicare trustees reported that the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare grew by a stunning $10.4 trillion. The average annual growth topped $2.5 trillion.
Here’s something else Shuster the smirking teleprompter reader did not tell you — much of the money collected by the government at gunpoint is spent elsewhere, not on Social Security. It’s all funny money to the criminals on Capitol Hill — and they’ll keep stealing from you so long as you let them.
Constitutional scholar Michael Badnarik on the 10th Amdendment.
Shuster hates the Tenth Amendment because it reaffirms the once well understood principle that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people.
“The issue of power – and especially the great potential for a power struggle between the federal and the state governments – was extremely important to the America’s founders. They deeply distrusted government power, and their goal was to prevent the growth of the type of government that the British has exercised over the colonies,” explains the Tenth Amendment Center. “It’s quite clear that the Tenth Amendment was written to emphasize the limited nature of the powers delegated to the federal government. In delegating just specific powers to the federal government, the states and the people, with some small exceptions, were free to continue exercising their sovereign powers…. Adherence to the Tenth Amendment is the first step towards ensuring liberty in the United States. Liberty through decentralization.”
September 10, 2009
In the following video, Obama’s “regulatory czar” Cass Sunstein — who was confirmed by the Senate on Wednesday – talks about the Second Amendment.
Harvard professor Sunstein has odd ideas about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He is in favor of “reformulating” the First Amendment. The purpose of this reformulation would be to “reinvigorate processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views.” Sunstein would apparently have the government apply a sliding scale of importance to First Amendment and free speech issues favored by the state (under the control of ideologically biased intellectuals such as Sunstein) at the expense of those disfavored or deemed less important. The first Amendment specifically prohibits the government from infringing the freedom of speech, infringing the freedom of the press, limiting the right to peaceably assemble, or limiting the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. It does not say anything about the government creating hierarchical categories of importance for free speech.
Sunstein also misinterprets the Second Amendment. His argument about government restrictions on the amendment — in particular, gun locks — is predicated on the self defense argument. In fact, the founders naturally assumed individuals would use weapons for self defense and they did not include the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights to ensure self defense against criminal acts — rather, they explicitly crafted the Second Amendment as a bulwark against government tyranny. Armed militia — citizens of a country — were to defend against tyranny and were not organized for hunting expeditions. So-called liberals inherently sidestep this basic principle and insist the Second Amendment is about hunting and to a lesser degree self defense. It is unimaginable to them that the people may one day be required to defend themselves against a tyrannical state.
Sunstein either misunderstands the original purpose of the Second Amendment or stands opposed to an armed citizenry guarding against tyranny. “Your first question involved the Second Amendment. I strongly believe that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess and use guns for purposes of both hunting and self-defense. I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision in the Heller case, clearly recognizing the individual right to have guns for hunting and self-defense. If confirmed, I would respect the Second Amendment and the individual right that it recognizes,” he assured Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and other senators during his confirmation.
It would seem senator Saxby and the other Congress critters share a dim understanding of the Second Amendment as well. For them, it is all about hunting and self defense, not a tyrannical state.
September 1, 2009
A pandemic and disaster preparation bill (S. 2028) passed unanimously by the Massachusetts Senate earlier this year is receiving wide-spread criticism as citizens mobilize to oppose its passage in the commonwealth’s House of Representatives.
“Under this bill, Massachusetts becomes a medical police state. There is no debating it,” wrote Natural News editor Michael Adams in an August 28 article entitled “Wake Up, America: Forced vaccinations, quarantine camps, health care interrogations and mandatory ‘decontaminations,’” where he suggested America was delving into medical fascism. “The citizens of Massachusetts will have no rights, period. The Constitution is ancient history. You are now the property of the State.”
The bill contains a number of controversial, alarming, and blatantly unconstitutional provisions. Under an emergency declared by the governor, the statute purports to give the health commissioner, and law enforcement and medical personnel broad authority to mobilize forces, vaccinate the population, enter private property with no warrants, and even quarantine people against their will.
The legislation provides severe penalties — $1,000 fine per day and possible jail time — for not complying with state orders, while also claiming to shield everyone involved from liability. It gives local health authorities the power “to restrict or prohibit assemblages of persons” and gives government agents the authority to “arrest without a warrant any person whom the officer has probable cause to believe has violated an order” while using “reasonable diligence to enforce such order.” Also, law-enforcement authorities “shall assist” medical personnel in the “involuntary transportation” of people to “treatment centers.”
The provision on vaccines does give citizens the authority to refuse the vaccination, but people who do can be “isolated or quarantined.” The same fate awaits those are “unable or unwilling to submit to decontamination or procedures necessary for diagnosis.” One part of the legislation requires that owners or occupiers of a property “permit entry into and investigation of the premises,” and another section creates price controls.
Draconian measures like this to supposedly deal with pandemics and outbreaks of disease are getting a boost with the hysteria surrounding swine flu, but critics are warning of the dangers of such tactics and fighting back. “In this time of fear, we can’t let that fear take away our freedom to make voluntary health decisions,” said Barbara Loe Fisher, the president of the National Vaccine Information Center. She offered a chilling analysis of the legislation in Massachusetts and the national situation, saying “it looks like few choices will be allowed.” But she encouraged people to find out what their rights are.
Though it breezed past the Senate with a 36 to 0 vote, the Massachusetts bill is still languishing in the House after being referred to the committee on health care financing. “One of the reasons the bill is stalled in the house is because those house reps are being bombarded with phone calls from constituents saying, ‘I will refuse the vaccine,’” explained writer Devvy Kidd in a piece about important bills to defeat where she said the reaction to this legislation may have been blown out of proportion.
But while opposition to the plan may be mounting, there are many in power who believe — like Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel — that the government shouldn’t let “crises” go to “waste.” This bill has been debated in the Massachusetts legislature before, but the House and Senate could never agree on a final version. So some lawmakers are using concern over the swine flu outbreak as a tool for pushing their agenda and getting it passed this time around.
“It’s too bad that we have to have something like that pending to get us to finally act,” said Democratic Massachusetts Senator Richard Moore in a televised interview, referring to the spread of the H1N1 virus. “This was actually on the calendar before that became a news story,” he explained, but “it does give us another reason why it’s a good idea to have this one the books.” If the House passes it, a veto by the governor will likely be the last thing that could stop it.
Unfortunately, people hoping that the judicial branch will step in an restore some sanity may be left wanting. “Judges will not stand in the way of emergency actions taken to protect the public from a clear and present danger, and if they do, the state appeals court will over turn their rulings in a matter of hours,” explained a piece written by Louisiana State University director of the program in law, science and public health Edward Richards and Dr. Katherine Rathbun. “The history of judicial restraint on emergency powers is one of blind obedience to civil and military authority.”
A great deal of tyrannical federal statutes dealing with health emergencies already exist, and some other states are considering vast power grabs of their own. Maine recently had its National Guard engaging in swine flu vaccine scenario drills at a school while the military draws up plans to help FEMA with the swine flu situation across the country.
But it is past time for citizens to demand that their leaders respect the people’s medical freedom and individual rights. Massachusetts should kill this bill and other states should fight to preserve the liberty of their citizens. Government officials at all levels should finally obey their oaths to the Constitution and the bill of rights, especially in the life-and-death field of healthcare.
August 31, 2009
THE LAW IS QUITE CLEAR, THE FEDS ARE IN BREACH OF THEIR AGENCY CONTRACT
[Article 9 of the Bill of Rights]
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
[Article 10 of the Bill of Rights]
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
I don’t believe that it gets much more concise than that.
For years now the point that I’ve attempted to drive home on this as well as other forums, is that we need to get a ground-swell of people POUNDING the Constitutional facts INTO Congress. An overwhelming call, from the people with special emphasis on the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Bill of Rights, which trumps all extra-constitutional Federal power… They are in breach of their Article 4 Section 4 “MANDATE” in the Constitution, that the federal government control the border, during times of INVASION! This popular ground-swell would force the feds to stop the “bankrupting of the states.” The cost of this war on terror, and the influx of illegal aliens, and the threat of a North American Union… are all De-Facto UNCONSTITUTIONAL “UNFUNDED” FEDERAL MANDATES!!!
[Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution]
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”
We all know the logistics of border enforcement and even deportation is well within our means. The problem is getting the politicians off of their dead posteriors! The real enemy are not those poor Latinos and Mexicans… at least not completely… though a few well timed altercations could turn this into a horrible mess which is exactly what the big boys are hoping will happen! Then they could dispense with the Constitution all together and we would really be in the soup! NO, the REAL enemy is in Washington, Ottawa, Mexico City, and the Globalist UNITED NATIONS in New York… fueled by the lust for power of their masters in London and the Banking capitols of Europe…
We must stay COOL and use the tools that the Founders Fathers gave us with resolve… we must remain vigilant… Remember, The WAR on TERROR, the Illegal Alien Problem, the SPP/NAU, and so on, are ALL DE-FACTO UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNFUNDED FEDERAL MANDATES THAT ARE BEING FOISTED UPON THE PEOPLE AND THE STATES! Y’all got that, right?
We… have resolutions in 1/3 of the states through the adoption of a 10th Amendment re-affirming Resolution that demands the accountability of the feds by Constitutional chapter and verse for any federal mandate! In the cases spelled out above, the feds cannot show anything but that they are in unconstitutional BREACH of CONTRACT!
The power against this rests in the states, and with We the People… a majority of states put the feds on notice between 1994-1996 with…
“The 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolution!” It stated, if mandates didn’t pass Constitutional Muster, chapter and verse, which included adequate funding… there would be FIRINGS in Washington… The resolution states, with all certainty, that WE THE PEOPLE of THE UNITED STATES understand what the Constitution and specifically 10th Amendment means, and exactly what it says!
May 29, 2009
During a speech today on “cybersecurity,” Obama told a whopper. He said the government’s effort to protect us from cyber bad guys “will not include monitoring private sector networks or Internet traffic. We will preserve and protect the personal privacy and civil liberties that we cherish as Americans.”
Is it possible Obama has never heard of Mark Klein, the retired AT&T communications technician who said years ago that the company shunted all Internet traffic — including traffic from peering links connecting to other Internet backbone providers — to semantic traffic analyzers, installed in a secret room inside the AT&T central office on Folsom Street in San Francisco? There are similar rooms in Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego, all sucking up internet data.
Whistleblower Mark Klein
Klein explained that the multinational corporation is doing this at the behest of the NSA. It is “vacuum-cleaner surveillance” approach that grabs everything. “Despite what we are hearing, and considering the public track record of [the Bush] administration, I simply do not believe their claims that the NSA’s spying program is really limited to foreign communications or is otherwise consistent with the NSA’s charter or with FISA [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act],” said Klein in 2006.
After the NSA showed up in 2002 at AT&T’s Folsom Street facility, Klein began connecting the dots. “You might recall there was a big blowup in the news about the Total Information Awareness [TIA] program, led by Adm. [John] Poindexter, which caused the big upsetness in Congress, because what Poindexter was proposing to do was draw in databases from everywhere — and this was in The New York Times — draw in Internet data, bank records, travel records, everything into one big conglomeration which could be searchable by the government so they could find out everything about what anybody’s doing at any time of day,” Klein told PBS. “And all this would be done without any warrants. This is how it was presented by Poindexter himself in The New York Times, and that caused a great upset, brouhaha, in Congress.”
On January 16, 2003, Senator Russ Feingold introduced legislation to suspend the activity of the Total Information Awareness program pending a Congressional review of privacy issues involved. In February 2003, Congress passed legislation suspending activities of the IAO (Information Awareness Office) pending a Congressional report of the office’s activities.
Congress acted after William Safire published an article in the New York Times claiming “[TIA] has been given a $200 million budget to create computer dossiers on 300 million Americans” (see You Are a Suspect, November 14, 2002).
Of course, the program didn’t go away. Legislators included a classified annex to the Defense Appropriations Act that preserved funding for TIA’s component technologies, if they were transferred to other government agencies. TIA projects continued to be funded under classified annexes to Defense and Intelligence appropriation bills.
“Total Information Awareness — the all-seeing terrorist spotting algorithm-meets-the-mother-of-all-databases that was ostensibly de-funded by Congress in 2003, never actually died, and was largely rebuilt in secret by the NSA, according to the Wall Street Journal’s Siobhan Gorman,” Ryan Singel wrote for Wired on March 10, 2008. “There’s been no real debate in Congress or in the press about whether the government should be allowed to track every Americans phone calls, emails and web browsing.”
Jon Stokes, writing for Ars Technica, notes that TIA technology is nothing new. “TIA-like efforts are still going on” Stokes wrote in 2005, and “the government has been trying to use new technology, like database tech and voice recognition, for domestic surveillance for a long time. And when I say a long time, I mean well before the current administration came into office.” It really got a boost under Clinton in 1995 when the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) was passed. “CALEA mandated that the telcos aid wiretapping by installing remote wiretap ports onto their digital switches so that the switch traffic would be available for snooping by law enforcement.” In other words, Mark Klein had but scratched the surface.
Truman created the NSA in 1952, supposedly to serve as “America’s ears” abroad, but the agency has long served as a secret Stasi-like organization dedicated to snooping on Americans. The NSA, writes Siobhan Gorman for the Wall Street Journal, “and other intelligence agencies were found to be using their spy tools to monitor Americans for political purposes.”
The NSA’s predecessor, the Armed Forces Security Agency, launched Project SHAMROCK in 1945. It obtained copies of all telegraphic information exiting or entering the United States with the full cooperation of RCA, ITT and Western Union. A sister project known as Project MINARET involved the creation of “watch lists,” by each of the intelligence agencies and the FBI, of those accused of “subversive” domestic activities. The watch lists included such notables as Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Jane Fonda, Joan Baez and Dr. Benjamin Spock, according to Patrick S. Poole, writing for Nexus Magazine in 1999. The FBI, the NSA, and other intelligence agencies were actively involved in creating the watch lists.
NSA has attempted to keep up on technology as the secretive agency continues to snoop on “subversives” and others the government considers miscreants. In February, trade publications reported the agency is offering “billions” to any firm able to offer reliable eavesdropping on Skype IM and voice traffic. Skype is particularity troublesome because it utilizes P2P networks, that is to say peer-top-peer (no central server owned and operated by a telecom required). The government and the corporate media may tell you they want to crack down on P2P — for instance, the vastly popular BitTorrent — because of copyright infringement, but a more practical reason is because the government has yet to figure out how to crack the file sharing protocol. Skype and BitTorrent account for a large amount of traffic on the internet.
If you think Obama will roll back the government’s massive and unconstitutional snoop program, think again. On April 3, the Obama Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss one of the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s landmark lawsuits against illegal spying by the NSA. The DOJ demanded that the entire lawsuit be dismissed based on both the Bush administration’s claim that a “state secrets” privilege bars any lawsuits against the executive branch for illegal spying, as well as a novel “sovereign immunity” claim that the Patriot Act bars lawsuits of any kind for illegal government surveillance (see the EFF press release, Obama Administration Embraces Bush Position on Warrantless Wiretapping and Secrecy).
In March, Obama’s coordinator for cybersecurity programs, Rod Beckstrom, a former Silicon Valley entrepreneur, quit because he opposed the role of the NSA in the so-called cybersecurity initiative. Beckstrom said “the threats to our democratic processes are significant if all top level government network security and monitoring are handled by” the NSA.
“Obama’s moves drew praise from key lawmakers on Capitol Hill, who vowed to work with the president to implement new security measures as needed,” CQPolitics reported shortly after his “cybersecurity” speech. “Obama said his cybersecurity adviser — who will be a member of both the National Security Staff and the National Economic Council staff — will head a new office within the White House.”
“We applaud President Obama for highlighting the extraordinarily serious issue of cybersecurity,” Sens. Johns D. Rockefeller IV, D-W.V., and Olympia J. Snowe , R-Maine, said in a joint statement. “No other president in American history has elevated this issue to that level and we think him for his leadership.”
No other president so far has had the power to shut down the internet. The Rockefeller-Snowe bill, S 778, would grant Obama dictatorial power declare a so-called “cyber emergency” and pull the plug, or at least cripple networks deemed a threat. The U.S. government is not seriously worried about Chinese hackers or mischievous kids in Latvia (as Rockefeller cited as a danger) but rather fear free and unfettered speech and activism on the part of its own citizens.
Obama’s promise is merely an effort to string you along with a big fat lie. He has absolutely no respect for you or the Bill of Rights.
May 21, 20099
It’s bad enough that 2/3 of the entire US population live in what is effectively a Constitution free zone — an area that encompasses 100 miles of land and coastal borders — now the government is claiming it has the authority to enter your home without a search warrant under an arcane FCC policy.
A garage door opener provides the FCC with an excuse to search your home in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
If you have a wireless router, a cell or cordless phone, baby monitor, and even a garage door opener the feds can enter your home at any time and inspect it. “Anything using RF energy — we have the right to inspect it to make sure it is not causing interference,” FCC spokesman David Fiske told Wired News.
According to the FCC, it gets the right to ignore the Fourth Amendment under the Communications Act of 1934. Back in the day home transmitters were used mostly by ham-radio and CB-radio operators. In 2009, however, nearly every house in America has some sort of device that uses radio waves.
The FCC policy came to light after an FCC agent investigating a 100-watt transmitter in Boulder, Colorado, left behind a copy of the FCC’s inspection policy. “Whether you operate an amateur station or any other radio device, your authorization from the Commission comes with the obligation to allow inspection,” the policy states. “This is an intimidation thing,” the leader of Boulder Free Radio told Wired. “Most people aren’t that dedicated to the cause. I’m not going to let them into my house.”
Not allowing FCC agents into your house, however, carries a stiff penalty. In 2007, a man in Corpus Christi, Texas, learned this the hard way — he refused to allow the FCC into his residence and was slapped with $7,000 fine. The FCC had tracked him down with its direction-finders after he rebroadcasted AM radio through a CB radio.
A Supreme Court ruling in 1987, New York v. Burger, allows FCC inspectors to contact U.S. attorneys if they notice illegal evidence unrelated to FCC violations.
“It is a major stretch beyond case law to assert that authority with respect to a private home, which is at the heart of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure,” Electronic Frontier Foundation lawyer Lee Tien told Ryan Singel. “When it is a private home and when you are talking about an over-powered Wi-Fi antenna — the idea they could just go in is honestly quite bizarre.”
It may be bizarre, but it is also part of the federal government’s ongoing effort to nullify the Bill of Rights and trample the Constitution.
“When the Federal government takes on functions not spelled out in the Constitution, in violation of the Tenth Amendment, it is only a matter of time before it will damage the unenumerated rights of the people, in violation of the Ninth Amendment,” writes Anthony Gregory. “After the government has gotten away with restricting speech and firearms when it has a ‘compelling interest,’ it will begin finding ways to search and seize property in violation of the Fourth Amendment. After each protection of the Bill of Rights has been eroded around the edges long enough, the government will pursue degradation of the most basic of statutory rights, such as the right to a jury trial — until the Bill of Rights is completely meaningless.”
A Visitor From The Past by Thelen Paulk http://www.infowars.com/ I had a dream the other night I didn’t understand.
A figure walking through the mist with a flintlock in his hand. His clothes were torn and dirty, as he stood there by my bed. He took off his three cornered hat and speaking low, he said: “We fought a revolution, to secure our liberty. We wrote the Constitution, as a shield from tyranny. For future generations, this legacy we gave, in this, the land of the free and the home of the brave. You buy permits to travel, and permits to own a gun. Permits to start a business, or to build a place for one. On land that you believe you own, you pay a yearly rent. Although you have no voice in choosing, how the money’s spent.” “Your children must attend a school that doesn’t educate. Your Christian values can’t be taught, according to the state. You read about the current news in a regulated press. You pay a tax you do not owe, to please the foreign I.R.S. Your money is no longer made of silver, or of gold. You trade your wealth for paper, so your lives can be controlled.” “You pay for crimes that make our Nation turn from God in shame. You’ve taken Satan’s number, as you’ve traded in your name. You’ve given government control, to those who do you harm.” “So they can padlock churches, and steal the family farm. And keep our country deep in debt, put men of God in jail. Harass your fellow countrymen, while corrupted courts prevail. Your public servants don’t uphold the solemn oath they’ve sworn. They defy and rape the nation, and leave it’s fabric tattered and torn.” “Your leaders ship artillery and guns to foreign shores. And send your sons to slaughter, fighting other people’s wars. Can you regain the freedom for which we fought and died?” “Or don’t you have the courage, or the faith to stand with pride? Are there no more values for which you’ll fight to save? Or do you wish your children to live in fear as a slave?” “People of the Republic arise and take a stand! Defend the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land! Preserve our Great Republic, and God Given Right! And pray to God, to keep the torch of Freedom burning bright!” As I awoke he vanished, in the mist from whence he came. His words were true, we are not Free, we have ourselves to blame. For even now as tyrants trample each God Given Right, we only watch and tremble, too afraid to stand and fight. If he stood by your bedside, in a dream, while you’re asleep, and wonders what remains of our Rights he fought so hard to keep, What would be your answer, if he called out from the grave; IS THIS STILL THE LAND OF THE FREE AND HOME OF THE BRAVE?