Just email it to a few of your friends.
The snoops, who are reading your emails,
are the ones who need to know what the Constitution says. Do you wish that the government would read the Constitution?
If your settings are to delete "spam" at once,
then you will never see the censored mail.
You do not find it even in the bulk mail folder;
therefore you have no way of knowing that it was ever sent.
The ostrich might put its head into the sand,
but just because you cannot see it does not mean that it is not happening.
Are we "defending freedom" in Iraq? At first we went to war because we said that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. We did not find any weapons of mass destruction. Then we said that we had to remove Saddam Hussein. We removed Saddam Hussein, but we are still in the war. Then we said that we are there to "defend freedom". As we defend freedom in Iraq, we might want to ask exactly WHICH FREEDOMS are we defending? Are we defending the right of habeas corpus? Are we defending the freedom to mention our religious ideals on any public property? Are we defending the freedom to travel without going through police checkpoints? Are we defending the freedom to criticize the President, or other government officials, without being in violation of the Patriot Act, and considered a possible terrorist? Are we defending the freedom to mention the Constitution in any district court without being held in contempt? Are we defending the freedom to discipline children, if they get out of line, without having them kidnapped by the Department of Social Services, and held hostage until we receive approved psychological therapy, and are deemed acceptable? Are we defending our own borders against illegal aliens? Are we defending the freedom to talk about, or publicly support, any candidate, an election is occurring in your locality within the next 90 days? Are we defending the freedom to demand a search warrant if an officer asks to search your vehicle at the "seat belt" checks, in accordance with our fourth amendment rights? Are we defending the freedom to object when the searching officer will not help you pick up your belongings that he has strewn all over the highway as he searched our vehicle, without being charged with "obstructing justice"? Are we defending the freedom to keep and bear arms, as provided in the Second Amendment? Are we defending the right to be free from warrentless searches at homes or businesses? If a government bureaucrat shows up at your home, he will probably be flashing a badge at you. This makes him look like a constitutional law enforcement officer. He may even be armed. Do not ask to see a warrant, and then tell him to leave if he does not have one. They will put a siege around your house. If you do not come out soon enough, they may invade, with guns drawn, or even set your house on fire. For more information, do a search using keywords like "Symbionese Liberation Army", "Philadelphia MOVE group", "Gordon Kahl", "The Order", "Robert Matthews", "Covenant of the Sword and Arm of the Lord", "Randy Weaver" , "Branch Davidian", or "Elian Gonzalez". If you are counting on you congressman to protect you, understand that the average congressman is ALSO afraid to resist. For more information, do a search using keywords like "George Hansen", "James Traficant" or "Larry McDonald". Are we defending the freedom to visit a mall without being monitored by hundreds of surveillance cameras, watched by federal security forces? Are we defending our freedom to put "anti-government" bumper stickers on our car; especially anything about the right to keep and bear arms, without being stopped by police who have been trained by the FBI in "bumper sticker profiling"? With regard to "bumper sticker profiling" we should be especially aware of the fact that "They will get my gun, when they pry it from my cold dead fingers" is no longer mere semantics. At WACO, and at RUBY RIDGE, we learned that they WILL kill us to take your guns Are we defending the right to have "unauthorized THOUGHTS"? There are now serious penalties for "thought crime". Be aware that "civil forfeiture" laws make it possible to take anything that you own, by alleging that it was "intended" to be used for the commission of a crime. This could include transporting, or storing, a gun. If "civil forfeiture" proceedings are initiated against you, then you will have the burden of proof, to show that your thoughts were in compliance with government standards. Are we defending the right to be free from excessive taxes? The 50 per cent government confiscation of your income at the threat of imprisonment or at the point of a gun should not even cross your mind as you revel in your freedom. After all, April 15th is a long way off. Are we defending the right to a jury trial? If you have a few decades with nothing better to do, study up on "administrative law". Laws are now made by the unelected bureaucrats, in hundreds of "administrative agencies". If you are charged with violating one of these "laws" you will not get a trial by a jury of your peers. You will be tried by the agency that made the charge. Are we defending the right to communicate with each other on the internet without having surveillance and censoring of our messages? Can we demonstrate to Iraq how much better it would be to have a government that does not torture? Can we demonstrate to Iraq how much better it would be to have a government that does not have secret prisons that operate outside of law? I hope this message gets past the Department of Homeland security approved internet filter. Or are we just defending Haliburton's right to gain an Iraqi contract windfall? ---------- HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISORY This transmission screened prior to receipt by addressee pursuant to applicable sections of the USA PATRIOT Act. ------------------ None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. Our forefathers are crying. Our forefathers are angry. Our forefathers are loading their muskets and heading for The Green. America........Wake up. In every call for more power for government there should be a reminder that nothing in the measure will abrogate the constitutional rights of American citizens. THOSE WHO HONESTLY BELIEVE IN THE LAW WILL BELIEVE IN THE HIGHEST LAW OF THEM ALL. THE CONSTITUTION IS THE HIGHEST LAW. We must not destroy freedom in the name of defending freedom. Be careful about elimination of rights, or the setting up of totalitarian instruments If we abandon the heritage of liberty, in order to oppose terrorists, then the terrorists accomplish their objectives. Ben Franklin said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety, and ultimately will have neither." The more important question is this: Why defend the totalitarian system? There are plenty of other places, that one could live, that are already dictatorships, if that is what one prefers. There is no need to impose it upon us. All dictatorships centralize police power, in the hands of the chief executive of the central government Free countries keep it spread out, and in the hands of local authorities. "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointive, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." James Madison in Federalist paper No. 47, para. 3. "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." Louis D. Brandeis (1856-1941) - American judge The Supreme Court said...... "It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error." U.S. Supreme Court in American Communications Association v. Douds, 339U.S. 382,442. "The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people." James Madison, Constitutional Convention June 29, 1787 The Most Dreaded Enemy of Liberty by James Madison, August 1793 Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. . . . [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and . . . degeneracy of manners and of morals. . . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. . . . [It should be well understood] that the powers proposed to be surrendered [by the Third Congress] to the Executive were those which the Constitution has most jealously appropriated to the Legislature. . . . The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war . . . the power of raising armies . . . the power of creating offices. . . . A delegation of such powers [to the President] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments. The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted. The separation of the power of raising armies from the power of commanding them, is intended to prevent the raising of armies for the sake of commanding them. The separation of the power of creating offices from that of filling them, is an essential guard against the temptation to create offices for the sake of gratifying favourites or multiplying dependents. ### James Madison was the fourth president of the United States. This is from Letters and Other Writings of James Madison. "A tyrant is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader." ~Plato -- William Shakespeare SUMMED IT UP in one line in "King Lear": "Be it thy policy to busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels." "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." -- Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg trials.