Someone PLEASE debunk this

You have much more (and I think misplaced) faith in the willingness of my fellow citizens to defend their rights. How do you explain the no-questions-asked search and seizure of cash from travellers? The government-mandated wanding and occasional strip-searches (and subsequent eviscerating of the Fourth Amendment) of people in airport? How about the fact that the FBI can (and you don't have any legal recourse) chain you to a toilet in an airport for 48 hours while they wait for "observed bowel movements" because you "matched the profile of a drug smuggler." Why do we take bans on semi-automatic firearms merely because they look like machineguns? Why do we allow the use of military personel and equipment in drug cases? My countrymen are, for the most part, sheep.

The reason there's never concerted resistance against the taking of our liberties is because they do it so slow. It's a death of a thousand cuts. I know about this tactic, they've used it successfully on the gun community (of which I consider myself a part) many times. Back in '94 the feds declared war on ugly rifles and magazines that held an adequate amount of ammunition. Just goin' after the gangbangers though, no infringement on the hunters (like the Second Amendment is about duck and deer hunting ). They got us to accept that, then they started going after fully legal and law-compliant rifles. Now they're going after big target rifles because "terrorists might use them." Never mind the fact that the average terrorist can't buy a gun, these rifles cost nearly 10 grand a piece, and none of them have been used in crime, EVER. Now they're trying to go after hunting rifles. They chip away at our rights so slowly only "fringe elements" would oppose their measures, especially if they can justify their intrusions by saying they're doing it "for the children." The slow assaults upon our liberties (especially upon the Second Amendment) are excellently chronicled in the books "Send In The Waco Killers" and "The Ballad Of Carl Drega" by Vin Suprynowicz. If you ever want to do some research on the corruption of freedom in the US, these books are a great place to start. Esp. The Ballad..., they illustrate how The Powers That Be slowly chip away at our rights so they never face concerted resistance.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Adrian

Adrian you've got to realise that the people writing these books, just the same as the ones dong the website, have an agenda. You have to take into account of where they're coming from. what they're trying to do etc... sensationalism sells books. conspiracy theories and stuff like this get ate up big style no matter how far fetched or improbable.

As for the airport thing. do you not think that catching drug runners is a good thing? now there's only a handful of ways to do this and you outlined one of them. if you're flying somewhere from jamaica or colombia and the sniffer dogs set about you then the cops are entitled to suspect you. they don't handcuff people and sit around waiting for them to take a shit just for the fun of it.

Again, security is not the main purpose of the Patriot Act (if a purpose at all).
Control on people's consuming habits is. That's just my opinion.

Beyond that, this legislation does make it possible for the people in power to act as an omnipotent dictatorship. It's not "Do they want to?" or "Will they?", it's "Can they?". And the answer is yes.
Do you actually trust today's politicians enough to allow them such rights?
I know I don't. Not even the very few ones I agree with on this issue.

The very first line of the Patriot Act is :

"An act to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes."

"And around the world" wait a minute here: The US congress votes a legislation concerning the entire world? Who are the congressman representing the other 191 countries - the other 5.7 billion people - on this planet?

"And for other purposes" ? WTF? Do we want such doors left wide open? From the very first line the limits of this legislation reforming fundamental rights are made unclear. It's simply unacceptable.

And that's just the first sentence. There are 131 pages like this...

Ponrauil

No matter what you think of the USA's foreign policy, and even if it is fallible, wanting to deter terrorist acts inside AND outside it's borders isn't exactly a horrible thing.

That's not the issue.
When it comes to fighting terrosim worldwide, wanting to do it, which is fine, is their decision. If they do it and how they do it is the entire world's business.

Ponrauil

So the person writing the books can't be trusted because they "have an agenda," but the Congressman who will/does wield nearly unlimited power over his fellow countrymen can be trusted because he doesn't? That makes NO sense. And actually no, these books don't "get ate up big style." The two I referenced have been out for years, and neither of them has sold even 20,000 copies.

I didn't ask if you thought chaining someone to a toilet on the random chance they'll expel drugs is a good idea, I merely stated it as one more example of how powerful the feds are, and how succesfully they've butchered our rights.

Adrian

EVERYONE has an agenda including you, congressmen and myself. The point is that you keep a healthy dose of cynicism about all of them whereas at the same time not believing everything is going to turn into the worst case scenario.

Again, if you fit the profile of someone that could be bringing drugs into a country then I really don't see a huge problem with them taking what steps needed to find out for certain.

Given that this guy is not likely to be listened to, isn't making any money off his beliefs, and wouldn't make any money even if we actually RETURNED to a Constitutional, rights-based form of government, I have a slightly easier time believing him rather than that smug little **** in the Oval Office, or anyone he appoints.

Oh yeah. And proving the guy I originally quoted wasn't a fraud, here's some slightly varying corroboration.

Congress Funds Mandatory Psychological Tests for Kids

Newsmax | November 23 2004

One of the nation's leading medical groups, the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons (AAPS), decried a move by the U.S. Senate to join with the House in funding a federal program AAPS says will lead to mandatory psychological testing of every child in America – without the consent of parents.

When the Senate considered an omnibus appropriations bill last week that included funding for grants to implement universal mental health screening for almost 60 million children, pregnant women and adults through schools and pre-schools, it approved $20 million of the $44 million sought, Kathryn Serkes, public affairs counsel for AAPS, told NewsMax.

This $20 million matches a like amount already approved by the House, Serkes advised.

While the funding cut of some $24 million was a little good news, suggested Serkes, whose organization has zealously opposed the the measure, she said the organization was most worried about the failure of Congress to include “parental consent” language sought by the AAPS.

Last September, AAPS lifetime member Rep. Ron Paul, M.D., R-Texas, tried to stop the plan in its tracks by offering an amendment to the Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Act for FY 2005. The amendment received 95 “yes” votes, but it failed to pass.

According to Serkes, Paul is now mulling offering stand-alone legislation in the next session to once again try and get a provision for parental consent.

The federal bill on its face does not require mandatory mental health testing to be imposed upon states or local schools, explained Serkes.

However, the HHS appropriations bill contains block grant money that will likely be used – as is often the case with block funding – by the various states to implement mandatory psychological testing programs for all students in the school system.


The spending bill has its roots in the recommendations of the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, created by President Bush in 2002 to propose ways of eliminating waste and improve efficiency and effectiveness of the mental health care delivery system.

Although the report does not specifically recommend screening all students, it does suggest that “schools are in a key position to identify the mental health problems early and to provide a link to appropriate services.”

The bottom line, explained Serkes, is that a state receiving money under this appropriation will likely make its mental testing of kids mandatory – and not be out of synch with the federal enactment.

The other telling point, said Serkes, is that although the relatively minimal funding at this point is certainly not enough to fund mandatory mental testing for kids countrywide, it’s an ominous start:

“Once it’s established and has funding, a program exhibits the nettlesome property of being self-sustaining – it gets a life of its own. More funding follows.”

Officials of the AAPS decry in the measure what they see as “a dangerous scheme that will heap even more coercive pressure on parents to medicate children with potentially dangerous side effects.”

One of the most “dangerous side effects” from antidepressants commonly prescribed to children is suicide, regarding which AAPS added, “Further, even the government’s own task force has concluded that mental health screening does little to prevent suicide.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Paul says the mental testing scheme is a looming feature of "Big Brother" that if unchecked will push parental rights out of the picture:

“At issue is the fundamental right of parents to decide what medical treatment is appropriate for their children. The notion of federal bureaucrats ordering potentially millions of youngsters to take psychotropic drugs like Ritalin strikes an emotional chord with American parents, who are sick of relinquishing more and more parental control to government.

“Once created, federal programs are nearly impossible to eliminate. Anyone who understands bureaucracies knows they assume more and more power incrementally. A few scattered state programs over time will be replaced by a federal program implemented in a few select cities. Once the limited federal program is accepted, it will be expanded nationwide. Once in place throughout the country, the screening program will become mandatory.

“Soviet communists attempted to paint all opposition to the state as mental illness. It now seems our own federal government wants to create a therapeutic nanny state, beginning with schoolchildren. It’s not hard to imagine a time 20 or 30 years from now when government psychiatrists stigmatize children whose religious, social, or political values do not comport with those of the politically correct, secular state.

“American parents must do everything they can to remain responsible for their children’s well-being. If we allow government to become intimately involved with our children’s minds and bodies, we will have lost the final vestiges of parental authority. Strong families are the last line of defense against an overreaching bureaucratic state.

Are you now going to claim Newsmax.com is bunch of paranoid tinfoil hat collectors who take the X-Files seriously too, and that they pulled all this out of the air for the heck of it?

Adrian

So then what are your suggestions Adrian? …

“In our long experience of drug policing that gentleman over there looks suspiciously like he has 5 kilos of cocaine lodged tightly in his rectum… an impressive skill… shall we pull him up??... NO!! because it’s his constitutional right to walk like John Wayne through an airport, twitching randomly and sniffing a lot… let him get out on the streets and sell his $hit to small children… that’ll make for a happier society… maybe when the kiddies are high they can go get a hold of a semi-automatic weapon and shoot some of their classmates the funk up… thank god Adrian repealed those laws on the tightening of controls of automatic weapons, I’m sure they won’t really kill too many more people than they could technically have done with a butter knife if they were really wired.”

We are not going to agree here… It’s a balance of real life threatening crime against a conspiratorial obsession that your civil liberties are going to be eroded to the point where you find yourself living in a police state. My vote would be, nail the drug dealers, nail the gun-runners by the balls… as quickly and efficiently as you can.

Criminals are in the minority, Adrian (for just now!) you need far reaching powers to catch them… the majority of people are not going to find themselves on the end of a supervised $hitting session…
“Shall we stop the kid with the NRA magazine, boss?”
“No he doesn’t fit the profile of a drug dealer… he fits the profile of a slightly edgy sci-fi fan”

I think you’d also struggle to find one incident of someone who had more than 10 grand confiscated and wasn’t given it back when they the situation was proved legitimate.

The bottom line I think is neatly summed up by George Carlin… perhaps your country’s finest export… “The entire country is completly full of shit-and always has been. From the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution to the "Star Spangled Banner,"[…]
Think of how it all started: America was founded by slave owners who informed us, "all men are created equal." All "men," except Indians, Blacks, and women. Remember, the founders were a small group of unelected, white, male, Land-holding slave owners who also, by the way suggested their class be the only one allowed to vote. To my mind, that is what's known as being stunningly-embarrassingly- full of shit. And everybody bought it. All Americans bought it."

here's a thought Adrian.

k as far as I know, you don't work in any capacity.

I've worked in several shops and i'm now in a pub. If someone comes in looking ragged and a bitty dodgy i'm going to pay more attention to them than a wee old lady buying some eggs or havign a brandy.

by the same token, one of my best friends who is massive but one of the biggest pussies you will ever meet is literally always stopped and searched at airports just because of the size and look of him.

now to you this may be a breach of his civil liberties but to him and everyone else it's just an annoyance and a very isolated case of someone looking bad and not being.

you'd be suprised how more often than not you're stereotypical "dodgy looking geezer" is exactly that.

if someone's walking around wearing camo gear and an NRA t shirt you'd assume they carried guns would you not?