If a government is preparing to take away people's food, water and means of survival, wouldn't that seem to be a cause for concern in the news and in general conversation? Doesn't this executive order trample upon our most basic Constitutional rights? The fact is, many in America are simply in a state of denial that such events could actually ever happen. Because of the many years of domestic peace and prosperity, many Americans have developed a certain blind trust of the government. And watching sports or Dancing with the Stars makes people feel a lot better than discussing critical issues. A quick review of Stalin and Ukraine, however, would offer a case in point that governments do in fact take over food supplies for trumped up and unjustified reasons.
Tags: US Government can seize your food, food fascism, total government takeover of America, America prepares for martial law, US citizens in denial regarding plans for martial law, NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS
Related
US Drought Called Apocalyptic as Obama asks Russia for Help
Armed SWAT Raids Confirm 9/11 Criminal Hearings Necessary
Obama Signs NDAA on New Year's Eve: Welcome to Prison Fellowship!
Rick, since you seem intent on viewing anything the government does with alarm, I'm going to leave you to it; there's no point when you're so far gone in "But this interpretation is *possible*"-land in trying to persuade you that it's not as bad as it seems.
ReplyDeleteOne can always stretch the interpretation of laws; whether or not they actually *are* stretched is a different question.
After all, the First Amendment "Freedom of Religion" could be interpreted to permit *no* government regulation of religious activity, including otherwise illegal activity. But are you shouting in fear from the rooftops that modern-day Mayans are going to start up human sacrifice? No.
If you want to cherry-pick laws and cases to make yourself feel worse about the future, go right ahead.
The first amendment cannot be interpreted as that whatsoever. The first amendment is very clear on what it means. No law can prohibit you from practicing your religion unless if it effects the rights of another individual. Once it infringes upon another's rights, it is now illegal.
DeleteThere used to be a time when if someone criticized the government about something so clearly unconstitutional he would be looked at as well informed and intelligent. Now thanks the Main Stream Media and Politically Correct nonsense most people have been convinced that we are all conspiracy theory nut jobs. Well guess what boy and girls? Not all conspiracies are theories and today most are facts.
DeleteImnotandrei,
ReplyDelete>Rick, since you seem intent on viewing anything the government does with alarm...
It would be interesting what country you are from, imnotandrei.
Most of the people I met in Ukraine don't have to be warned about blindly believing the government and the supposed the intentions of the government. They don't usually have to be warned to verify the facts about what the government is stating. However, in the US, the case is quite the opposite. The population has lived with relative peace and prosperity and there is a strong tendency, known as the normalcy bias, to assume that the gradual erosion of civil liberties that is occurring is perfectly acceptable and not at all to be questioned in any way shape or form.
Because of the compromised mainstream news, many Americans are simply clueless as to the atrocities that have been perpetrated by the US and this helps to give a false understanding of government security and goodwill regarding the future. I am a realist when it comes to politics, not an optimist or pessimist.
The flooding article shows some examples. If anyone doubts the facts presented in these atrocities, I can easily provide links to individual sources on the Internet:
The 13 Most Evil U.S. Government Experiments on Humans
http://www.ranker.com/list/the-13-most-evil-u-s-government-experiments-on-humans/robert-wabash
As it happens, Rick, I'm from the U.S. and Germany, having lived in both.
DeleteI don't believe in unconditional trust in the government either -- what I am saying is that you, Rick, are crying "wolf" over possible interpretations of laws -- when almost any law involving significant situations, if stretched, could produce a ludicrous result. For example, in many states, speed limit laws are not absolute -- they're subject to the judgment of the highway patrol regarding conditions on the road.
So, in theory, a cop could decide "this road is only safe at 35 because it's raining" and ticket people driving 45 on a 45 MPH speed limit. In theory, this could happen. I've yet to find an actual case of it, but that's the way the law is written.
Posting "US Laws Allow Cops to Seize Your Cars" would not be a proportionate response to those laws.
Now do you see, Rick? By pointing out threats under every bed, you're making it *easier* for people to ignore them, because your claims are so overblown.
Because of the compromised mainstream news,
We agree here -- Fox, in particular, has done its best to devastate the credibility and respect and integrity of the news media. They're the ones, after all, that claimed the right to lie in their news broadcasts.
I am a realist when it comes to politics, not an optimist or pessimist.
I disagree; by searching out "worst possible cases" over and over and over again, and not looking at mitigating factors, you are definitely being a pessimist.
"In-home bible study being banned!" -- A man who described himself to media and the IRS as running a church was not allowed to continue doing so on his property without obeying safety laws, after repeated warnings.
"Pastor sentenced to prison for advocating spanking!" -- spanking two-month-old children with wooden rods.
Do you see a pattern here?
Let me try another one on for size:
"Christians supporting massacres of doctors!" -- because the man who shot George Tiller was a Christian, and several Christian organizations have supported activity that led to the assassination.
Now do you see why I'm talking about your exaggerations and viewing-with-alarm?
Imnotandrei,
Delete- Posting "US Laws Allow Cops to Seize Your Cars" would not be a proportionate response to those laws.
It would be an appropriate title if cops were actually seizing cars across the country and then trying to use vague laws in order to try and justify this.
The fact is, the government is becoming more totalitarian and trampling upon the Constitution in many instances as documented. This is an historic trend. It is not a fantasy. If you wish to believe it is not happening, I find this a bit odd considering that you recognize the NDAA is completely unconstitutional.
Do you believe that Stalin was justified in seizing the grain of Ukrainian farmers in the Soviet Union during the famine of the early 1930s?
Does the US law mentioned in this article, “NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS", not pave the way for the same type of situation to occur?
Most people, except perhaps Russians who idolize Russia, consider Stalin's actions of collecting people's necessary food and supplies inhumane and atrocious. But, apparently, in your mind no one should ever be concerned that such a situation could occur again and no precautions should be taken to avoid such a situation. On the contrary, if a government prepares laws that would allow for grain and water confiscation it should be ignored by the public because it is only a possibility and it has not actually occurred yet. I find your attitude and position to be quite naive.
With repeat to home church meetings, I posted a reply at the appropriate location:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/07/60-days-in-prison-and-12180-fine-for.html?showComment=1342434646592#c2828009635036106595
The fact is, the government is becoming more totalitarian and trampling upon the Constitution in many instances as documented.
DeleteAnd as I have said before, you're viewing a few instances as signs of a trend, instead of looking at all the places where it is *not* a trend. For example, restrictions on erotic materials have been steadily dropping since the mid-20th century -- but that doesn't fit your narrative or your approved moral code, so you don't factor it in.
Do you believe that Stalin was justified in seizing the grain of Ukrainian farmers in the Soviet Union during the famine of the early 1930s?
No.
Does the US law mentioned in this article, “NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS", not pave the way for the same type of situation to occur?
You did notice it was an implementation of a law from 1950, superseding similar executive orders from 1988 and 1992, didn't you?
That's an awfully shallow grade of a slippery slope you've got there.
(Oh -- also, don't forget the way judicial review works in this country; the Court cannot reach out and act on laws before they become cases.)
So, yes, by a tortured reading, one could assert that. One could also assert that it's the basis for *rationing* of food, as we've already had in this country, during WWII, and which we seem to have survived just fine, thank you.
But, apparently, in your mind no one should ever be concerned that such a situation could occur again and no precautions should be taken to avoid such a situation.
Nompe. I think that there is a difference between "taking precautions" and "reading the worst possibility into everything the government does". Calling yourself a "realist" when you expect the worst at every opportunity is only evidence of your pessimism. ;)
Regarding the meetings in Arizona, this is not an isolated case. Bible studies across the US have been shut down by local authorities. In one case in San Diego County. Chandra Wallar, the count's general manager of land use management, re-examined the situation and decided that the couple did not need a permit after all, despite complaints about traffic in the street.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.christianpost.com/news/san-diego-county-allows-bible-studies-to-continue-in-home-38888/
Does the local Arizona zoning board offer a clear definition of a public religious assembly in their code books? If not, they probably should not be putting the Arizona pastor in jail and fining him.
So, in your first case, the system worked, did it not? Yet I do not find you praising the authorities for getting it right, in your opinion. (I do not know whether or not they were -- it sounds a much less clear-cut case than the Salman one.)
DeleteDid you notice, BTW, that Salman pled responsible for building without an appropriate permit? He *agreed* he'd done something wrong, and didn't fix it.
If not, they probably should not be putting the Arizona pastor in jail and fining him.
They don't need one for public "religious" assembly. They just need one for public assembly, because there should be no extra rights extended because the assembly is religious. And I am sure they do, because that's how you define a public use building -- which Salman's was, and which was clearly not up to code.
You're acting again as if asking a church to obey the same laws as everyone else on issues not pertaining to religion is somehow oppressing them.
>So, in your first case, the system worked, did it not? Yet I do not find you praising the authorities for getting it right, in your opinion.
Delete- The system worked? People having to go through unnecessary legal problems and harrassment for unjustified reasons does not qualify a system that works. You should go to Ukraine some time and try to open a legal business and see what that is like. It would probably be a very good educational experience for you helping you to understand that increased bureaucracy and government control generally does not help to make for a more healthy society, but quite the opposite.
>You're acting again as if asking a church to obey the same laws as everyone else on issues not pertaining to religion is somehow oppressing them.
- No, see the legal analysis of home church meetings I noted at my previous comment:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/07/60-days-in-prison-and-12180-fine-for.html?showComment=1342434646592#c2828009635036106595
The system worked? People having to go through unnecessary legal problems and harrassment for unjustified reasons does not qualify a system that works.
DeleteA system that in the end protects people from errors is one that works. You can't guarantee perfect behavior by *anyone*, and police are no exception.
It would probably be a very good educational experience for you helping you to understand that increased bureaucracy and government control generally does not help to make for a more healthy society, but quite the opposite.
Again, your life anecdotes don't rise to the level of reliable evidence. Nonetheless, I'm glad you got out of what, according to you, was a terrible, terrible place.