On The Supression of Liberty

The following post contains inflamatory language and ideas. The intention of the piece is to enrage you, not offend you. I've ommited the title of the piece so as not to run afoul of any posting rules.


An Open Letter To My Fellow Citizens of The United States of America:

I am sick of the endless debates about the fucking flag. I'm sick of the ribbons and banners. The parades. The fucking holidays. I'm sick of wars that, as Wes Mendell so elegantly pointed out, have their own theme music and logos. I'm sick of politicians who wrap themselves in the red, white and blue, setting themselves up so that any criticism of them or their ideas is a criticism of America itself.

You're being fucked up the ass with the giant dick of patriotism and all you can say is, "harder, harder." It's a distraction, that's all it is. Magicians call it misdirection. Hey, look over there, so you won't notice what we're doing over here.

You think you live in a free country? Bullshit. They've been systematically taking away your freedoms for a hundred years and most of you haven't even noticed. It's not new and it's not partisan. It's all about power.

Take a look at the Constitution. All those rights that you were guaranteed? How many do you think you still have?

The first amendment covers your right to free speech. Take a look, "Congress shall make no law 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."

The very existence of the FCC blows that one out of the water. Seems somebody decided that if it's broadcast, it's not covered. Ask George Carlin, he'll tell you.

And your freedom of religion? Doesn't apply if you don't have one, or your religion doesn't include a supreme being. At least that's the case in seven states, where someone who doesn't believe in the existence of god is prohibited from holding office.

Want to assemble peacefully? You might need a permit for that. Depends on the situation and the law that covers it, even though any law covering such assembly is, well, fucking unconstitutional.

How about the second amendment, the right to keep and bear arms? Would you like to try counting the number of laws that infringe on that one?

The fourth amendment says this, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The Patriot Act took care of that one. For our safety. I refer you to the words of Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Do you still think you're free?

In a free society, you'd have the right to put anything into your body that you chose. Drug laws make that impossible.

You'd have the right to end your own life at the time of your choosing. Sorry, against the law.

Want someone other than the government and corporations to fuck you up the ass? Forget it, sodomy is illegal in 24 states.

And can anyone give me any reasonable justification for the laws against prostitution? As Carlin said, "Selling is legal, fucking is legal, why isn't selling fucking legal?"

Land of the free my ass.

These laws and many others exist for one reason, to control us. To make us into good little sheep while the powerful live their lives of privilege, content in the knowledge that all it takes to keep us bent over is a little flag waving and a couple verses of the fucking national anthem.

It won't change. You'll keep voting for them, supporting them, gladly giving up your freedoms for a little more peace of mind. So when they take away your smokes, your red meat, your candy, don't worry about it, it's for your own good.

And when they start banning your games because they're too violent for your children, well, that's okay too. After all, we have to think about the children.

Any other freedoms you can live without? Speak up. I'm sure they're listening……



The above was originally posted on my blog on May 31. It has been reposted here to reach a wider audience.

You really think that those prohibitions, written before the 14th Amendment introduced the concept that the U.S. Constitution and the Bill Of Rights applied in any way to the actions of state governments would be even close to enforceable today?

No, it's not.

Not to let facts get in the way of a discussion about the Constitution or anything.

So what if it doesn't enrage me so much as make me say "Yeah, that's the same goddamned things we've all been discussing every day for years around here, only, you know, with things like facts and figures and examples and historical and global context; you're neither insightful nor novel in your perception or approach"?

Oh, joy.

Oh, snap. That's so hot.

Sorry, in a bitchy mood this morning.

^^^ No, seriously, it was way hot.

Everyone has their own pet fascist cause.

mine is getting rid of the designated hitter.

Hard to tell, really. I can easily imagine it going to trial in any number of states. I'd like to think that the courts would rule in favor of the atheist, but I can also see it destroying the politicians life and career in the process. It's a moot point, though, since in most of those states, the meer revelation that a candidate didn't believe in god would destroy any chance he had at being elected.

No, it's not.



I stand corrected. The original article that I took that information from was dated a couple of years prior to that case. I thought I had corrected the essay before I posted it here, apparently I posted from the older version. My apologies.

If there were ever such a thing as a benevolent pogrom, this one would be it.

no enraging going on here

I'd say "Ouch."

Actually, I'd say that I need to spend more time around here. I find these thing rarely considered, much less discussed, elsewhere.

It's not a moot point in the slightest. There is a mountain of difference between being legally prohibited from running and being unelectable. Especially when you're talking about the context of state power.

The little intro line about enrage, not offend was intended to make clear that I wasn't trying to deliberately offend anyone, as per the posting guidelines. Probably unneccessary here, but I am new to this forum and such things have been a problem at other forums that I've seen.

OMG I'm enraged.

Moot in the sense that we're unlikely to ever find out if such a statute would hold up in court because the unelectability of such a candidate means there's almost no chance of it ever getting to that point.

Those statutes would not, in any way, hold up in Court. Period.

Pfft, like you'd know, mister random internet guy.

Oh wait, you're a lawyer. I forgot.

I don't have your confidence in the courts. Especially after some of the stupid decisions I've seen them make. Julie Amero's case comes to mind.

Hehe, I just read(well, skimmed) Scalia's dissent. He just used the opportunity to go on a tirade against Roe v. Wade, the crazy bastard.

I still can't beleive I can't kill anyone I want. That's complete bullshit. I'm enraged.

Scalia's dissents are awesome, man. Just awesome.

Seriously, I love them.

He's like an edgy, crazy, white collar Archie Bunker with shit tons of power.

"...surely consensual sodomy, like heterosexual intercourse, is rarely performed on stage"

-Antonin Scalia.