Police State: No to Protection, Yes to Suppression

Canada Free Press ^ | 01/14/16 | Douglas V. Gibbs

[Sean_Anthony]

At what point in history did these people come to the conclusion that failing to give aid and comfort to the enemy should be a criminal offense?

The United States Supreme Court has ruled a number of times that law enforcement cannot protect you. They are there to take a report after a crime is committed. Reality suggests that the police are unable to protect you without compromising your freedom as an individual. To “anticipate” crime and arrest based on a condition of anticipation, before any crime is actually committed, would be to dwell in the realm of Orwellian government where thought crime reigns. Nonetheless, pre-crime suppression has been trying to rear its ugly head, through crime assessment technology, and hate-speech laws.

The reality is that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. While government seeks to disarm the public, they are also trying to change the minutes into seconds, by intruding into the details of our lives.

[rawcatslyentist]

At what point in history did these people come to the conclusion that failing to give aid and comfort to the enemy should be a criminal offense?

That would be in the 600's, and it IS their law. Those not able or willing MUST provide material aid to those that are. It's shariaa law!

[T-Bone Texan]

The selective enforcement of some laws, against some people, while allowing other laws to be unenforced and other people to go free from prosecution is the very definition of “Anarcho-Tyranny”.

It marks a fundamental shift: From the government seeking to protect its’ citizens to the government now seeking above all to control its’ citizens.

It is a tool of oppression used by the left; just one of the tools in their toolbox.

Every FReeper should be able to identify Anarcho-Tryranny.

[MeganC]

Wouldn’t it be a shame if the leftists went after their enemies and ignored you?

I only hope I’m doing enough to piss them off at me.