Subject: latest attack on First Amendment


In this week's Arkansas Democrat-Gazette newspaper's religious section appears an article about lawsuits between our draconian "Homeland Security" bureaucracy and the Secret Service on the one hand and an outfit called Great News Network on the other.

Seems the network, an "evangelical" outfit has been distributing tracts in the likeness of one million dollar bills with obvious religious wording on them. The feds have accused these people of counterfeiting and confiscated their tracts.

Since the description of the tracts makes it clear that they could never be mistaken for real money (hey, how many million dollar bills has the Fed. Reserve circulated? - with religious remarks, no less?) something else has to be the real reason for this federal harassment. Included in the article is a sentence from the U.S. Attorneys' response to an opposing brief enumerating various government violations of the first amendment rights of the tract makers which shows brazenly what that something else is.

The sentence, or part thereof quoted, is "The First Amendment values must be balanced against societal interests . . ."

Read that again, folks.

In the first place, the First Amendment does not espouse "values" in the common understanding of such. It enumerates RIGHTS. Not government given rights (privileges) but rights the government is not allowed to infringe or tamper with in anyway - as in, "balancing them against 'societal interests.'" There is NO balancing of these rights allowed against ANYTHING, period. . . . Oh, yeah, we have all heard the old saw about hollering "fire" in a movie theater but such acts do not allow infringement of the right itself although there may be other actual prosecutable criminal concerns, such as the shouter's intent. Likewise the silly statutes against telling "bomb" jokes in an airport - something for which Americans of just a generation earlier would have hung the makers of.

Any right is either absolute or no right at all. In our law, those amendments are absolute. They were put there by the founders as a means of assuring that the government could not misuse the intent of the constitution and its powers granted to government. In order to get the people to ratify that document. So they would know these rights enumerated in that special added Bill to the constitution are absolute and not to be messed with by government on pain of prosecution of such governmental crimes.

The phony "societal interests" argument has been used since Wilson, and especially since Roosevelt, to gradually chip away at these absolute rights while the people have been progressively dumbed down enough, both by "education" and by manufactured emergencies and wars, to institute those infringements without the people hanging the perpetrators, or rather, the just plain traitors.

The term "societal interests" translates exactly into "government control." Actually "unlawful government control" i.e., the police state. Our society is composed of individuals. (Families are a better bottom unit but our government, masonically established, makes the "planned mistake" of using the individual as the basis of law.) The purpose of the amendment being argued is to safe guard each individual's rights, therefore it is already "balanced" against real "societal interests" as opposed to police state interests falsely projected in the name of the society as a whole.

Unless the people are awakened sufficiently to understand these infringements do not give them safety in any way but cement the police state over their every act we will continue to exist in an ever expanding prison run by the police state of such satanic types as Michael Chertoff, whose phony "Homeland Security" bureaucracy is behind this latest attack on First Amendment rights.