Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Government Declaring War on Citizens?
The Sierra Times ^ | 09.04.01 | Ray Thomas

Posted on 09/06/2001 8:03:46 AM PDT by vannrox

Cuttin' through the Bull #81
Is Government Declaring War on Citizens?
Copyright © 2001 By Ray Thomas 09.04.01


I recently received an e-mail from someone who has sent me a lot of good information in the past, and one of the things he deduces from the marked increases in government atrocities against citizens is that the government has "declared war" on us. They're taking our property, filing bogus charges against people they don't like, burning our homes while claiming we're criminals, but usually without proof we are and claiming we "torched" our own property for some unknown reason (This is becoming part of their "modus operandi." They used it at Waco where they burned almost 100 people including a bunch of innocent children and they're now using it in Santa Clarita, California, where they burned one man to a crisp in his own home.). They're taking our property on spurious excuses, violating our constitutional rights with impunity, and many other things. One of the things he noted is that the simple fact is that governments derive their inherent power from restriction and control. They get that by first conditioning you to accept that restriction and control by always having a "plausible reason" for each new incursion on your rights.

The important thing here is that they don't just "all of a sudden" enforce new laws and regulations that take away large gobs of your rights all at once. They know this would cause you to "rise up in anger" and take them down. The most important thing is for you to "remain asleep" while they "nibble" at your rights, little by little, in such small bites that you don't even notice or, if you do notice, you have been conditioned not to care. We call this "incrementalism." Most of their incursions on out rights are small, and they always seem to happen to "the other guy."

No one notices except that "other guy," and by himself, he is too small to matter. They "single us out" for action against us, ignoring our constitutional rights and proceeding as if they do not exist. They rely on the fact that others have been too well conditioned by previous events to object. They've been working on us for years, teaching us that we're just "part of a large group" when it comes to conning us out of our money and property, but we are all individuals when it comes to the government just taking it.

They "single us out" and take unilateral action against us, one by one, and we don't even have to do anything they don't like in order to become a target, although that helps. Each case tends to become "an example" to others that it doesn't pay to oppose them. There are exceptions to that, as witness the shutting off of irrigation water to 1,400 farmers in Klamath Falls, Oregon. Water that the government originally used as an enticement for them to move there and begin farming years ago by promising that the water would be theirs to use "in perpetuity." That they have gone back on a "solemn promise" is nothing new to the power seekers in this, or any government. The "solemn promise" is just a tool they use to get what they want. They make it, then wait until those they made it to have forgotten it was made (through senility or death), then violate it, claiming it was never made or just ignoring claims that it was.

Here are a few of the things they're doing:

  • MAKING "SOLEMN PROMISES, THEN VIOLATING THEM: This is how they overcome opposition to their plans. When Franklin Delano Roosevelt (He was the longest-serving president we ever had, remember? The one who moved this country further toward socialism than any other before him. The one who conned us into that pyramid scheme we call Social Security and literally created the welfare state, making a large segment of the population dependent on government, therefore guaranteeing their loyalty.) He was promoting Social Security as the answer to all our problems, he got a lot of stiff opposition from people who violently objected to the whole concept, but mostly to the issuance of a single, unique number for each of us and requiring us to have it.

    These people insisted that this number was a mechanism by which they could keep close track of us all if it were ever used as a "universal identifier." So what did he do? He made a "solemn promise" that this number would never be used that way. It would be used for one purpose, and one purpose only: to keep track of the money you pay into the "Social Security Trust Fund" and your "Social Security Account." They even printed, right on the Social Security card: "Not to be used for identification." Unfortunately, they didn't make that usage against the law, surprise, surprise! For a few years (about 30) they even honored this by not allowing people to use it as an identification card for anything but Social Security.

    Then they began using it for tax purposes, saying that since Social Security "contributions" were collected along with your taxes, it was proper. At the same time, they started numerous databases using this number as the identifier. They also encouraged credit reporting companies and even simple private business to demand and use this number as the "file number," basing their entire file-keeping system on it. They have forced banks to collect and use that number when you open a bank account. Today, you can hardly do anything without having to fight off demands for that number. One of the common "excuses" for why you shouldn't mind is that "so many people have it, it's stupid to refuse to give it." My answer to that is that I'm going to stop it right here as far as my Social Security number is concerned. The Klamath Falls situation is just one more example of a "solemn promise" forgotten. I call this the "Thirty-Year Promise."

  • WEAKENING THE CONSTITUTION: Has anybody noticed that the average liberal says that the Constitution is "outdated" and has no effect on modern-day life? That it's just an old paper written by a bunch of rich landowners designed to keep "the common people" down while retaining certain rights for themselves? They say that it is a "liquid document" that can be ignored, since it has no consequence today, and they ignore it with impunity, since they own the courts. Studies have shown that in the last 40 years there have been more liberal judges appointed than conservatives, guaranteeing them control. "Judicial activism," where the judge rules, not by the law or the Constitution, has become a major problem for which there is no remedy under today's laws.

  • WEAKENING THE LANGUAGE: There is no law if the very words used to make the law are subject to "definition." Rush Limbaugh is fond of saying "words mean things," and he's right. But they attempt to use "subjective logic" to make sure that words mean what they want them to mean. Under subjective logic, "there are no absolutes." That means that words can be made to mean whatever you want them to mean and those "enforcing" the law can "define" that law to suit themselves. They use "political correctness" to allow themselves to define the very words we use in debate. This is slowly destroying our language.

  • ATTACKING THE FAMILY: They must condition our children to accept collectivism if they are to be able to advance their plans in the future. Collectivism is the philosophy of choice for those who want power over the rest of us. It conditions us to accept the idea that the government, not the individual, is the "seat of power," in opposition to what the Constitution says. They must be able to do this without the opposition they have encountered from parents. So to destroy the family and the rights of parents, they created the fiction that child abuse was "rampant in the land," and that we must take extraordinary measures" to combat it (the old Hegelian Principle: Create a problem, publicize it, then offer a "solution" which advances your goals). They made laws that basically take away the constitutional rights of parents and strip from them the right to object when their children are stolen and sold. When they're worried about that, they can't object to the conditioning that's going on in the schools.

  • ATTACKING THE CHURCH: They've attacked the church by using one of the Founders' most cherished concepts, the "separation of church and state." They claim it is part of the Constitution, but it is not. They've used it to make prayer in school or in any public place a crime. They're slowly destroying religion as a concept by limiting the places in which it can be practiced -- in the name of keeping state and religion separate. The Constitution prohibits the government from "making any law regarding religion or the practice thereof." But they use the "separation" concept therein promulgated as "permission" to make laws regarding religion and the practice thereof." They've tried to make sure that no church person ever advances a political opinion (unless they're black or liberal, of course) or they face the possibility of losing their tax exempt status or becoming subject to a tax audit and confiscation of their property.

  • ATTACKING THE MILITARY: The military is dealt with in one of several ways: first, reduce their funding, which has been effectively accomplished, mostly by the Clinton administration lately. Then they attempt to discredit them by painting them as "hawks" whose only reason for being is to "go to war," and who are useless in peacetime. They ignore that the biggest reason it is "peacetime" is because the military is there. They attempt to weaken the moral fiber of the military by forcing upon it the requirement to accept gays and women into their general ranks. They're doing a good job of that.

  • DISARMING THE POPULACE: If you want to control the population of a given country, you can't have them armed. You must use any excuse to disarm them, and that's what they're doing, day by day, in small ways. They have gotten a big boost lately by the little spate of school shootings they've "spotlighted" in the news, from Columbine on. They're painting a picture of "school violence gone mad," while ignoring the fact that mass school shootings are only a "once-in-a-while thing," usually always done by people no gun law would stop anyway. They "spotlight" every instance of gun violence and take every opportunity to vilify guns, not gun users, while playing down the millions of instances where honest people use licensed guns to defend themselves. They're scared to death of the fact that so many states have passed "must issue" concealed carry laws and have become determined to stop that trend. Like most criminals, they want to be pretty sure that the honest, law-abiding person they come to rape will not meet them with a gun. Of course if they do, they just kill them and "whitewash" the murderer as they did with Ismael Mena in Denver.

  • SINGLING YOU OUT: They "single you out" and isolate you from the community before attacking you if you are "targeted" for destruction. In the Klamath Falls water situation, they've just singled out Barbara Martin, an outspoken activist there, by putting a restraining order prohibiting entering the headwaters area against her, something she hasn't even offered to do. This is the "opening gun" in efforts to discredit her. They'll use this restraining order later as "evidence" that she's a "violent person" and needs to be restrained. This is what they did with James Allen Beck in Santa Clarita, California, where they attacked his home on their usual minor charges, in retaliation for his suit against them for harassment after they tried for the third time to prosecute him on the same charges and failed. They came with many men and lots of guns, and when the man responded with gunfire, set his house on fire with tear gas canisters (as they did at Waco), allowed the fire department to pour water on the houses next door, letting his house burn down while they kept him from exiting so he burned to death. Burning him so badly they had a problem finding and identifying a body. His own neighbors gave interviews to the press (after the fact, of course,) saying that they "thought" there was something wrong with him after being conditioned by federal agents on the scene. Others have been similarly singled out, some to be killed, others to be prosecuted on spurious charges with the judge keeping them from being able to present evidence vital to their defense. That's what happened in the Peter McWilliams case, discussed elsewhere.

  • THEY JUST KILL YOU: When all else fails, they just kill you. Randy Weaver found that out at Ruby Ridge, Idaho when they came in to arrest him on a small, trumped-up charge of not having a license to alter a shotgun (who a federal snitch hired him to alter) and they killed his wife through a door while she was holding his infant child in her arms. Lon Horiuchi, the criminal with a badge that murdered her, was recently absolved of responsibility for that murder by the 9th Circuit Court, which ruled that he was able to execute her legally because he was "following orders" from higher authority and he was a "law officer." A best-selling author of books about the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes, Peter McWilliams was effectively murdered by the feds, who knew he needed marijuana to be able to keep down the medicine that kept him alive, arrested him illegally and denied him the use of it as a condition of his parole. He was soon found dead, drowned in his own vomit. No charges were ever filed against the perpetrators in his murder. There are many other such stories, but these will suffice as examples.

How are they able to do this? We allow it.

We allow it because we are conditioned to accept it. They've taught us that, as individuals, we have no power to resist. They have unlimited resources (our money) to use in fighting any effort we make to stop their excesses while we have little. Even if an individual has resources, they use the RICO Laws to confiscate them, leaving us defenseless before their unlimited resources. Since they don't have to have anything but a suspicion of wrongdoing to do that, it is very effective in disarming us in court. They've conditioned us not to resist over the years by teaching us that "one person" has no power to resist, and by doing everything they can to keep us from coming together as a "gathering of individuals" to oppose them. They make it very expensive to do so.

Consequently, we just try to ignore their criminal operations because they've taught us well. We think we can't do anything about them because they have all our tax money to use to oppose us, they can take our possessions by just saying we're engaged in illegal activity so we have nothing left to finance opposition, and even our neighbors can easily be turned against us, themselves being subtly conditioned by being given false information. So the largest percentage of the populace tries valiantly to ignore what they do, leaving them to their criminal operations without a lot of opposition, fearing that they will become the target of the government.

This is the way totalitarian governments (or would-be totalitarian governments) work. They single us out and bring the massed might of our own tax money to bear on us. People then try to ignore what they're doing, hoping they'll rape them last or that they can live out their lives before their government notices them. People who are opposing the government power seekers (not the government itself) call these people "apathetic." But it's not apathy. It's "protective stupidity."

In his classic book, "1984," George Orwell described what the "Thought Police" called "Crimestop." "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, (English Socialism, or in our case, simple socialism) and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity." It strikes me that today's liberal dupes are practicing Crimestop.

They subconsciously hope this will keep them safe, but it won't. The only safety lies in numbers. They must "come together" with other individuals and oppose the power seekers legally with large numbers of individuals who no longer buy their bullpuckey. The power seekers criticize people like me who profess to be "individualists" by asking how "individuals" can "come together" without becoming a "group." My answer is simple: there's nothing wrong with individuals becoming a group, so long as they are so by their own decision, not the decision of a government "agent."

We have to stop "knuckling under" to these people. We need to spend time learning all we can about their scams, schemes, and hustles until we no longer "buy" their stories and stop allowing them to rape us with impunity, slowly drawing the "noose" tighter, little by little, in small doses so we don't notice. We need to stop giving them permission to enslave us by opposing them at every turn, before each scheme gets strong enough that we can no longer oppose it. The American public is a "sleeping giant" who could slap them aside if we would just wake up and do it. Wake up, people!



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Front Page News
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-39 last
To: ScreamingFist
FYI bump.
21 posted on 09/06/2001 10:24:32 AM PDT by freefly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: PA_hayseed
I believe the time has come for another Constitutional Convention -- a good start would be to abolish the 16th & 17th amendments, and all laws infringing on the 1st, 2nd, & 4th amendments. There are enough States in the "RED ZONE" to make this happen (2/3 & 3/4 majority) before it is too late ---- We'll all become slaves of the "Government Overseers", and be murdered by the "State" at their leisure!

Won't get no flames from me... because in principle, a Constitutional Convention WOULD be a good idea.

Here's the vast pitfall between us and what we'd like the convention to do, though: the sorry lot of big-government types, like Ted Kennedy et al, would like little more than to have a Constitutional Convention also. You want to get rid of the 16th? Me too... but some people would also be licking their chops at scrapping the 2nd too. A convention could be our dream ticket to more responsible government... but it could also just as easily become our nightmare of government getting to write it's own check, too.

Unless it was agreed to from the getgo that the first ten amendments shall not be infringed upon, nor any amendment passed that nullfies or weakens them in any way.

22 posted on 09/06/2001 10:25:32 AM PDT by Darth Sidious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PA_hayseed
There are enough States in the "RED ZONE" to make this happen (2/3 & 3/4 majority) before it is too late ---- We'll all become slaves of the "Government Overseers", and be murdered by the "State" at their leisure

One small problem.
The rulers of the Red Zones are RINOs, and 99% of their constituents are sheep.

23 posted on 09/06/2001 10:25:41 AM PDT by DAnconia55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: freefly
Armed standoff with ALL the Government Alphabet (ATF,FBI, DEA,US Marshalls, Highway Patrol, Sheriff's Dept.Swat Team, etc...)groups in attendance in Kaliforniskia...
Taking place now on Fox News Channel...
Taking bets on a fire happening shortly...!
24 posted on 09/06/2001 10:27:23 AM PDT by freddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Section 8 - Powers of Congress The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Is it not possible to sue the government using the general welfare clause to moot some of their laws as unconstitutional?

25 posted on 09/06/2001 10:27:54 AM PDT by janus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freefly
I don't mean to discount the posted position on the "Emergency Powers" topic. The courts and Congress settled the remnant emergency power status in the 1973 - 1976 time frame.

However, that situation was made far worse with the evolution of the Presidential Executive Orders in combination with the Stafford Act and, of course, FEMA's powers.

In example, Clinton invoked the Stafford Act (Nasty Law) to empower FEMA's local authority, following the Oklahoma City bombing.

This thread (and yourself) are correct. There should be no doubt.
26 posted on 09/06/2001 10:28:08 AM PDT by SKYDRIFTER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: PA_hayseed
"Yes, this is possible, but would'nt this "threat" be diminished by the "Red States" sending "conservatives" to the convention? Opinions?"

By the "Red States" are you referring to Republicans?

I believe the Red States would be fighting the Blue States to see who could inflict the most damage to individual rights.

Then there would be one lone Republican (Ron Paul) screaming at the top of his lungs for everyone to stop. But the others would be too self-absorbed to listen!

27 posted on 09/06/2001 10:57:09 AM PDT by JRadcliffe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JRadcliffe
By the "Red States" are you referring to Republicans?

Yes, I mean the States in the "RED ZONE" of the now famous "Bush Map of the U.S.A."

28 posted on 09/06/2001 11:08:42 AM PDT by PA_hayseed (PA_hayseed@juno.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: freddy
What are you talking about member since Sept. 3, 2001? I see no mention of this in breaking news. Are you simply a disruptor? if not, why not post your find on breaking news?
29 posted on 09/06/2001 11:38:19 AM PDT by Loopy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: PA_hayseed
It's funny how us sheep made up over 70% of the viewers watching the debates. It's funny how every time i talk to a Dem about political issues you can tell they don't read news papers.Where do they get their information from? The extent of their knowledge revolves around tabloid TV news. They can repeat sound bites made by Dem pundants but when asked to explain,or better yet, point out facts they get mad. I mean real mad. Try this one when you next talk to a Democrate. Ask them if they know how the economy was doing when Clinton took office and how was it doing when he left office. If you point to the FACT that the Gdp was at 5.4% when he took office and that it was @1% when he left they get mad. Why? Question: How meny times can a Democrat(I-think-thatOcrats) say "I think that" in 60 seconds? "I think that this and I think that that" and this is every night on national "news".
30 posted on 09/06/2001 11:51:19 AM PDT by smithson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: PA_hayseed
It's funny how us sheep made up over 70% of the viewers watching the debates. It's funny how every time i talk to a Dem about political issues you can tell they don't read news papers.Where do they get their information from? The extent of their knowledge revolves around tabloid TV news. They can repeat sound bites made by Dem pundants but when asked to explain,or better yet, point out facts they get mad. I mean real mad. Try this one when you next talk to a Democrate. Ask them if they know how the economy was doing when Clinton took office and how was it doing when he left office. If you point to the FACT that the Gdp was at 5.4% when he took office and that it was @1% when he left they get mad. Why? Question: How meny times can a Democrat(I-think-thatOcrats) say "I think that" in 60 seconds? "I think that this and I think that that" and this is every night on national "news".
31 posted on 09/06/2001 11:51:27 AM PDT by smithson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
The walls inside INS tell me, the Bush administration is now backing away from blanket amnesty (yes it was his idea in the first place), and are working to create a NAFTA visa.

The NAFTA visa will allow low wage workers to enter the US to work, adjust status and become citizens.

Sounds like amnesty to me.

You will be hearing more about the screwed up INS from me in the future.

32 posted on 09/06/2001 11:58:03 AM PDT by Marine Inspector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Dick Bachert
"I DON'T KNOW WHOSE GOVERNMENT IT IS."

"ANYBODY OUT THERE KNOW?"

The government belongs to the...GOVERNMENT

And judging by the mind-addled ranting of the drug warriors -- so do our bodies, our homes, our children, our savings, our cars...ad-infinitum. And this is jut the ones who "claim" to be "conservative".

I shudder to think what the liberal drug warriors think! BUT then we already know what they think -- the EXACT SAME THING as the "conservative" drug warriors.

33 posted on 09/06/2001 12:10:00 PM PDT by JRadcliffe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Marine Inspector
Alright George! Now he can have the Democratics vote on the issue and when they vote against it we can all say how rasist they are. "Why do the Democrats hate Hispanics?" "I think Dashole was seen dragging a hispanic behind his pickup truck." While knowing it would never pass, George could kill two birds with one stone. Much like the all bs Dems pulled with the Keyoto treaty that they had no intention of signing into law themselves.
34 posted on 09/06/2001 12:13:22 PM PDT by smithson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: bassmaner
On another thread, a helpful person posted this link to explain the insanity of the WoD ... turns out our fearless leaders (Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush) are and were all involved in the BCCI scandal ... and it is all tied into the drug trade. See http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39e554d0287e.htm

Thar's gold in them thar hills ... that's why those boys be diggin' so hard.

35 posted on 09/06/2001 12:15:00 PM PDT by That Poppins Woman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: smithson
It's funny how every time i talk to a Dem about political issues you can tell they don't read news papers.Where do they get their information from?

Are you saying that if they read newspapers they would be informed and then vote for the likes of G. Bush??? Apparently that's what happens...As long as you people keep voting for the government's choices for politicians, we will continue to follow the course we are following...

That's why Bush refuses to let Burton get too close to the information that will get Clinton and his crew...Clinton and Bush work for the same boss...

You will not get back to a Constitutional Free Republic until you start going in a different direction than the govt is leading you...

36 posted on 09/06/2001 12:18:24 PM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
No. It's that they are informed by the liberal tv media only. Please ask a Dem how many countries ratified the Keyoto treaty. How did Clinton make the economy so strong, or better yet why did he not use this majic wand to help the economy durring his last year in office, and so on, and so on.
37 posted on 09/06/2001 12:31:29 PM PDT by smithson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: bassmaner
re Your #13:
I don't disagree with any of what you say... I just believe that, with the arrogance of the Clintoon gestapo, ALL PRETENSE about a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" was DROPPED like a hot rock. The all-out assault on Constitutional precepts, as well as our moral foundations, was begun in earnest and only accelerated over the ensuing 8 years, as evidenced by a new national record for Executive Orders that destroyed liberty at an incredible pace.

I am not so naive as to think that there are any "saints" in federal government, but I can spot a dedicated enemy of freedom from any distance - and Bill Clinton is such an enemy.

38 posted on 09/06/2001 1:45:09 PM PDT by TheGrimReaper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SKYDRIFTER
You are correct, the anti-terrorism laws and the power
granted to FEMA is a MAJOR tightening of the noose.
I like to use the W&EPA as a "turning point" example.
The institution of the Fed Reserve in 1917 (?) might be a better one...
or the loss of the original 13th Amendment during Lincoln's suspension of the Constitution earlier yet.
It's hard to put a finger on the 1st step...there are so many!
And they havn't stopped marching...yet.
39 posted on 09/06/2001 2:27:19 PM PDT by freefly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-39 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson