The Loss of Freedoms List (Vanity Post)

Cornpone | 25 Jan 2005 | Cornpone

[Cornpone]

Dear Freepers,

I'm getting old and perhaps a little wacky but as I look back over my life I continue to try and understand how my country hasn't quite turned out the way my mother and father brought me up to believe it should be and what it was I was always raised to defend. So I've started making a list of those things that just seem to represent a betrayal of what I always thought America is about...freedom. Its a short list, I'm still working on it and I know many, if not most, will not agree with everything on it. But I'm sure everyone has something to add to it...like the state of medical care in this country which I haven't even begun to think about. Anyway, they are simple things that individually don't amount to much. But, taken together they represent a fundamental change in our culture if you think about it. Please help me add to this list. I don't know what I will do with it. Perhaps I'll just go nail it on the doors of Congress..not likely. I'd rather nail it on the doors of the White House except we can't really go there anymore...another freedom lost.

• Mandatory motorcycle helmet laws

• Mandatory automobile seatbelt laws

• Mandatory boating lifejacket laws

• Increasing erosion of property rights

• Increasing regulation of alcohol consumption, tobacco use and firearms possession

• Virtual elimination of the right to self defense

• Denial of the right to carry a weapon for self defense

• Hate crime laws that ridiculously imply that the murder of one human being is more heinous than the murder of another based on some politically motivated criteria

• Encroachment on the constitutional right to assembly

• Increasing attempts to limit our constitutional right to free speech through hate speech laws that seek to dampen dissident opinions

• Increasing restrictions on demonstrations of personal faith with a bias against Christians

• Increasing restrictions on hunting

• Increasing restrictions on fishing

• Increasing restrictions on the traditional use of fireworks

• Increasing restrictions on traditional methods of outdoor cooking

• Increasing restrictions on water rights and usage

• Increasing government incursion and attempts to regulate the possession of domestic animals which in all cases don’t happen to be ‘pets’

• Unfair taxation to fund social practices abhorrent to most Americans

• Government advocacy of socially deviant lifestyles

• Government attempts to redefine millennia-old family relationships and bonds, i.e., gay marriage

• Affirmative action laws and policies that unjustly punish and deny opportunity to current generations based on the shortcomings of generations long past

• Ridiculous product liability judgments that seek to limit access and deny choice through judicial activism rather than legislative debate

Add your thoughts to the list please.

God Bless our Forefathers and God Bless You

[Southack]

"You keep mentioning these same things while dozens of other abuses are being pointed out by other people here. I'm trying to an optimist. Don't you have anything else?"

Dear Child, you are the furthest possible creature from an "optimist" in recorded history.

...And yes, I have more (I can do this because unlike you, my *mind* isn't enslaved by pessimism and doubt).

The military draft, forced conscription, is gone. No longer are unwilling boys called up into combat service. That's a positive step for freedom. It's also life and death, and it *is* a big deal that it is no longer active.

One form of abortion, Partial Birth, has now been banned (that's a major, life and death matter of infringing upon the rights of the innocent).

Income taxes are now lower.

The estate tax is dead. No longer must families sell their father's farm to pay an estate tax bill.

National union shop laws have been repealed. No longer are workers in most states subject to tyranical "union shop" membership.

Union members have the right to be refunded whatever portion of their union dues were used for political purposes with which they disagree (thanks to President Bush's reversal of President Clinton's defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court's Beck decision, an intriguing case where once again the liberal news media refused to blast Clinton's intransigence).

We've repealed, nationally, Gun Controls Against Active, Retired, and Off-Duty Law Enforcement Personnel Carrying Weapons Into Local and State Prohibited Zones (7/28/2004)

We've killed the freedom-robbing Kyoto Global Warming nonsense, as well as withdrawn from the uber-Left-wing International Criminal (and gained exemptions from it in numerous foreign jurisdictional areas).

We've passed the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act (less romantically known as H.R. 5382) which ultimately allows average Americans to hitch a ride on a civilian space craft at their own risk. The federal ban on such citizen travel was repealed by HR 5382 in 2004. The President signed that bill into law two days before Christmas.

We can now use the Internet for profit. We can now own as much gold as we can afford. We can legally consume/own alcohol again. Forced food and gasoline rationing is gone. Wage and price controls have been repealed.

Segregation is gone. Jim Crow anti-voting laws are gone. Women can vote. We can travel through "prohibited zones" with weapons legally stored in our car trunks without being subject to state, county, or local tyranny.

We can have flash hiders, 40 round clips, and folding stocks on our new assault rifles again. Commercial pilots can fly armed again.

Life is good. Enjoy your freedoms. I do.

[jonestown]

Congress shall make no law" meant what it said, but did not mean that only Congress was so restricted.

But there is no basis for that.

Backwards.. -- You have no basis for your claim that States can respect an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof; or abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Requiring that state officials swear to obey the Constitution does not change the wording of the 1st amendment from "Congress" to "States and Congress". It means state officials are sworn to abide by whatever restrictions the Constitution placed on them.

Correct. Some of those restrictions include that they shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

When you make a contract with another person, it can place obligations on one party that aren't required of the other.

True. - If there is a 'meeting of the minds'. Both parties must understand the contract.

And when both parties sign the contract or swear to it, it doesn't somehow oblige the first party to comply with the obligations of the second.

In our Constitutional contract, all parties understood Art VI. State/local officials [as well as Congress] were pledged to support ALL of our Constitutional liberties, including those later outlined in the 1st Amendment and all following Amendments.

[Humidston]

I don't have time to review the entire thread but if it hasn't been mentioned already, my nomination is toilets.

Government dictates the amount of water we may have in our toilets, resulting in..... Well, you can imagine.

[jonestown]

Dear Child, you are the furthest possible creature from an "optimist" in recorded history. ...And yes, I have more (I can do this because unlike you, my *mind* isn't enslaved by pessimism and doubt).

The military draft, forced conscription, is gone. No longer are unwilling boys called up into combat service. That's a positive step for freedom. It's also life and death, and it *is* a big deal that it is no longer active.

"Dear child", the draft is not "gone", it is merely waiting in the wings for the next major war.

One form of abortion, Partial Birth, has now been banned (that's a major, life and death matter of infringing upon the rights of the innocent).

What has been bureaucratically 'banned' can be unbanned. Ask Hillary.

Income taxes are now lower. The estate tax is dead. No longer must families sell their father's farm to pay an estate tax bill.

What has been bureaucratically --

National union shop laws have been repealed. No longer are workers in most states subject to tyranical "union shop" membership. Union members have the right to be refunded whatever portion of their union dues were used for political purposes with which they disagree (thanks to President Bush's reversal of President Clinton's defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court's Beck decision, an intriguing case where once again the liberal news media refused to blast Clinton's intransigence).

What has been bureaucratically -- yada yada.

We've repealed, nationally, Gun Controls Against Active, Retired, and Off-Duty Law Enforcement Personnel Carrying Weapons Into Local and State Prohibited Zones (7/28/2004)

We have acknowledged, "nationally", that Fed & State legislators have assumed the power to infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights. -- There should be no "prohibited zones" to our RKBA's.

We've killed the freedom-robbing Kyoto Global Warming nonsense, as well as withdrawn from the uber-Left-wing International Criminal (and gained exemptions from it in numerous foreign jurisdictional areas).

Yada yada, what has been bureaucratically -- yada yada.

We've passed the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act (less romantically known as H.R. 5382) which ultimately allows average Americans to hitch a ride on a civilian space craft at their own risk.
The federal ban on such citizen travel was repealed by HR 5382 in 2004. The President signed that bill into law two days before Christmas.

The federal "ban" had no Constitutional basis to begin with.

We can now use the Internet for profit. We can now own as much gold as we can afford. We can legally consume/own alcohol again. Forced food and gasoline rationing is gone. Wage and price controls have been repealed. Segregation is gone. Jim Crow anti-voting laws are gone. Women can vote. We can travel through "prohibited zones" with weapons legally stored in our car trunks without being subject to state, county, or local tyranny. We can have flash hiders, 40 round clips, and folding stocks on our new assault rifles again. Commercial pilots can fly armed again. Life is good. Enjoy your freedoms. I do.

Your points have been well refuted by many here. Repeating them does not validate your concept. We continue our fight for freedom in America, and our governments are not here to help.

[Jeff Head]

Liberty is built on morality. The founders understood this. They also understand that fundamental moral principle was not a shifting sand dune, subject to the mores of the day, that it came from God.

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."- John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798

As we depart from these principles, our freedom is eroded and the very principles that this republic and its liberties was founded upon are destroyed.

That's how.

[Dan Evans]

Backwards.. -- You have no basis for your claim that States can respect an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof; or abridge the freedom of speech,

Until we had documents like the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, or the Constitution, governments were allowed to do as they please. Without the constitution, they could and did those things. Why do you think we have state constitutions? It's because there were some provisions in the US constitution that didn't apply to the states.

This is not a radical interpretation of the Constitution. Constitutional scholars agree. Here's how Wikipedia explains it:

"Originally, the Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the states; for instance, some states in the early years of the nation officially established a religion. This interpretation of these Amendments remained until 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed..."

Now if you are allowed to establish a state religion, that would mean that the 1st amendment did not originally apply to the States.

US Constitution

[Southack]

"Your points have been well refuted by many here."

Rubbish. Claiming repeatedly that infringements on our individual freedoms weren't legal isn't refuting the fact that so many such laws and restrictions have been repealed directly.

We are more free today than in the past. I've documented it; you've waved your hands wildly in the air attempting to deny such obvious things (as if the military draft was still taking young men against their will, or as if Blacks were still being prevented from registering to vote by Jim Crow laws, or as if women were still denied the vote, or as if War Rationing was still in place, or as if gold ownership was still forbidden, or as if alcohol ownership/consumption was still banned, etc.).

Your mind is enslaved. You see only tyranny in the land of the free. Nothing, no fact, no logic, no debate will set you free so long as you wear such intellectual blinders.

You have enslaved yourself. No change in laws will free you from that prison.

[jonestown]

Here's how Wikipedia explains it:

"Originally, the Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the states; for instance, some states in the early years of the nation officially established a religion.

Idiotic misstatement of fact by 'Wikipedia'.
-- 'Some states, in the early years of the nation, had officially established religions, - religions which dated from the Colonial government era.' -- Is accurate.

This interpretation of these Amendments remained until 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed..."

Not true, again. All of the 'grandfathered in' State supported religions had withered away by the 1840's, -- whereupon Utah tried to gain statehood, with a state religion in their proposed constitution.
This unrepublican form of government was rejected for 40 years or more, till Utah agreed to conform with the US Constitution.

Now if you are allowed to establish a state religion, that would mean that the 1st amendment did not originally apply to the States.

Utah was not so 'allowed'. Case closed.

[jonestown]

Whatever. -- You've lost control of your rhetoric. I am not a blind slave.

[Southack]

"I am not a blind slave."

Then tell me what freedoms you exercise daily that would make "seeing" slaves jealous.

I hold that you have so enslaved your own mind that you don't exercise your own freedoms.

[Dan Evans]

The military draft, forced conscription, is gone.

The boys are still required to register for the draft. They can still be drafted but now they can be placed under a UN commander.

Income taxes are now lower.

How much have they cut spending?

The estate tax is dead.

You are an optimist. Don't count your money until it's in the bank. The estate tax is promised to expire in 2010 -- unless the Dems gain control of Congress or unless the Republicans continue their march towards Big Government.

National union shop laws have been repealed.

Might as well. Manufacturing is now done in forced labor camps in China thanks to the World Economy loved by both sides of the aisle. It's hard for me to enjoy my freedom when so many products I need are made by slaves.

We've repealed, nationally, Gun Controls Against Active, Retired, and Off-Duty Law Enforcement Personnel Carrying Weapons Into Local and State Prohibited Zones

Too bad the airline pilots have to run a federal gauntlet to carry weapons.

We've killed the freedom-robbing Kyoto Global Warming nonsense,

It's a monster that's still out there. Wait until Hillary's in office.

as well as withdrawn from the uber-Left-wing International Criminal (and gained exemptions from it in numerous foreign jurisdictional areas).

Instead of exemptions from it I would rather we didn't play patty-cake with the UN or any of these leftist international bodies. Better to form our own coalition.

The federal ban on such citizen [space] travel was repealed by HR 5382 in 2004. The President signed that bill into law two days before Christmas.

Good for him. When government gives us a break there might have a slight chance for some of us to leave this planet and get away from the UN and the international wolves that eventually will devour Western Civilization.

Segregation is gone.

Replaced with affirmative action programs and their new surrogates. Coming soon: reparations for slavery via class action suits.

I'm hitting the sack. Good night. You have the last word.

[Southack]

Segregation is gone.

"Replaced with affirmative action programs and their new surrogates. Coming soon: reparations for slavery via class action suits."

I'd love to hear you tell me again how you are "trying" to be an optimist...

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!!

[gridlock]

Government attempts to redefine millennia-old family relationships and bonds, i.e., gay marriage

The flaw is that government defined marriage in the first place. People were getting married for millenia before Congress came along and started punishing and rewarding based on marital status. But what the government can define, the government can re-define at whim.

The way to eliminate government promotion of gay marriage is to eliminate government promotion of any marriage, and let the institution stand on it's own. Somehow, I think marriage would do better without the government "help".

[Vinnie]

No knock search warrants.

[blackie]

Evryone wants to be a bloody commissar. :):)

No Guns ~ No Rights!

Be Ever Vigilant!

[Dan Evans]

All of the 'grandfathered in' State supported religions

The exact mechanism for "grandfathering" was the 1st amendment, which prohibited Congress, not the States from establishing a state religion.

In fact, nearly all the states have some strongly worded statement in their Constitution respecting religion:

"The Nebraska Constitution provides that `Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the Legislature . . . to encourage schools and the means of instruction.' Nebr. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 4. "

Why was that allowed? It wasn't "grandfathered" in.

"The first Congress, comprised of the same elected officials who drafted the First Amendment, admitted Vermont as a new State, with a constitution that provided: `every sect or denomination of Christians ought to observe the Sabbath or Lord's day, and keep up some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of God.' Vt. Const. of 1786, Ch. 1, Art. 3, reprinted in 6 Thorpe 3749, 3752"

So why did the original founders who wrote the 1st amendment admit a state that tells Christians they should keep the "Lord's day"? I say it's because they never intended that the 1st amendment should apply to states.

[jonestown]

Idiotic misstatement of fact by 'Wikipedia'.

-- 'Some states, in the early years of the nation, had officially established religions, - religions which dated from the Colonial government era.' -- Is accurate.

All of the 'grandfathered in' State supported religions had withered away by the 1840's, -- whereupon Utah tried to gain statehood, with a state religion in their proposed constitution.
This unrepublican form of government was rejected for 40 years or more, till Utah agreed to conform with the US Constitution.

The exact mechanism for "grandfathering" was the 1st amendment, which prohibited Congress, not the States from establishing a state religion.

The exact mechanism for "grandfathering" was the "Republican form of Government" clause and the 1st amendment, which prohibited both Congress, and new States from establishing state religions.

In fact, nearly all the states have some strongly worded statement in their Constitution respecting religion: "The Nebraska Constitution provides that `Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the Legislature . . . to encourage schools and the means of instruction.´ Nebr. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 4. " Why was that allowed? It wasn't "grandfathered" in.

Odd point. -- Why would I have objection to that Nebraska clause?

"The first Congress, comprised of the same elected officials who drafted the First Amendment, admitted Vermont as a new State, with a constitution that provided: `every sect or denomination of Christians ought to observe the Sabbath or Lord´s day, and keep up some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of God.´ Vt. Const. of 1786, Ch. 1, Art. 3, reprinted in 6 Thorpe 3749, 3752"

Again, - why should I object to that Vermont clause?

So why did the original founders who wrote the 1st amendment admit a state that tells Christians they should keep the "Lord's day"?

To form a lasting Union? -- Political compromises were made, and the peculiar wording of the 1st is a fine example. It worked. We have a union of States where religion is kept out of government, and no religious test is required to hold office.

I say it's because they never intended that the 1st amendment should apply to states.

I say the founders got what they intended in religious freedom.

[Dan Evans]

Are you a liberal? The reason I ask is liberals use the same kind of vague and twisted logic that you do. It is like you are trying to argue that 2+2=5.

And liberals are famous for finding "new rights" in the penumbras of the Constitution. They see things that aren't there. It is like they are hallucinating.

You invent the concept of "grandfathering" although the word does not appear in the Constitution.

When I point out state law (state constitutions) accepted after the Constitution was written that specifically respect establishments of religion, you say that "political compromises were made".

You try to say that the meaning of words change when people agree to a document, that swearing an oath to obey the Constitution changes the word "Congress" to "the States".

Apply Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation that explains all the observations is that the Constitution means what it says. Instead you try to say it means something different from what it says and evidence to the contrary was just a "political compromise" or an unwritten "grandfather clause".

[jonestown]

You've stooped to making personal observations because you can't refute the plain words I use to explain the plain words of our Constitution.

Indeed, those words mean what they say, in the context of the day & the men that wrote them.

You say the founders never intended that the 1st amendment should apply to states, - that State religions are OK.

I say the founders got what they intended in religious freedom. - We have a union of States where religion is kept out of government, and no religious test is required to hold office.