But nationalists and populists around the world ready to fight to retain financial sovereignty
Bilderberg has had front-men call anew for creating a global currency and establishing major European Union-style regions for the administrative convenience of a planned world government. Both steps were taken in September, one by the new Bilderberg-crowned prime minister of Japan and one separately by the UN.
The Geneva-based UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) called for a global currency in a report made public on September 7. UN countries should agree on a global reserve bank to issue the currency and to monitor the national exchange rates of its members, UNCTAD said. The dollar’s role in international trade should be reduced to protect emerging markets from the “confidence game” of financial speculation, it said.
Heiner Flassbeck, a former German deputy finance minister, is co-author of the report calling for a global currency. He worked with then U.S. Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers in 1997-98 to contain the Asian financial crisis. Summers is a longtime Bilderberg luminary and has been photographed by AFP at annual secret Bilderberg confabs.
Eliminating national currencies has long been a goal of Bilderberg as a crucial step in its plan to establish a world government. A nation’s currency is a symbol of sovereignty, so Bilderberg wants to divide the world into three giant regions, each with its regional currency, for the administrative convenience of its world government bureaucrats.
Bilderberg used its immense power to get Yukio Hatoyama’s Democratic Party of Japan elected over the Liberal Democratic Party, which had led the nation for 64 years. Hatoyama obediently called for an Asian economic bloc, similar to the EU, complete with a regional currency.
Bilderberg’s goal is an “Asian-Pacific Union” and an “American Union,” both modeled after the EU. The EU has its common currency, the euro, and a European Parliament that can impose laws on the once sovereign nations of Europe and a European Court superior to the highest courts of member states. The EU is effectively a single super-state.
The “American Union” is to evolve from the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, as it extends throughout the Western Hemisphere. The common currency is to be the “amero.” Fortunately, Bilderberg’s efforts in the Western Hemisphere have been stalled but the campaign continues using “free trade” propaganda.
Ultimately, the UN is to function as a world government with the General Assembly serving as a world parliament. Bilderberg, a secret organization of international financiers and political leaders, will serve as a world shadow government that dictates to the UN.
CONGRESS AND THE WHITE HOUSE have been busy lately patting themselves on the back for staving off financial armageddon by handing out taxpayer money to Wall Street like it was Halloween candy. But while they’re trumpeting the fact that some financial firms have returned a tiny portion of the trillions of dollars that were given to banks, reality is setting in that Americans will never see that money again and will be paying it off for many, many years to come.
In late September, legislators quietly assessed whether they should begin phasing out some government aid programs like the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, which appropriated $700 billion— all of which had to be borrowed from bankers and foreign countries—to purchase bad investments, known as toxic assets, owned by financial firms.
So far, more than 600 potentially insolvent banks have been propped up by TARP. However, the program is set to expire at the end of this year, and doubts remain as to whether many lending institutions will be able to hold on without continued handouts from taxpayers.
TARP was initiated in late September 2008 following the collapse of the stock market. Since that time, a handful of firms have reimbursed taxpayers for money they received under the program to the tune of about $70 billion, or 10 percent of what has been given out. The debate in Congress comes as the chief bureaucrat tasked with watching over TARP recently conceded during Senate testimony that taxpayers will most likely not be paid back for all of the money they gave Wall Street.
Speaking before the Senate Banking Committee on Sept. 25, Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for TARP, said that it is “extremely unlikely that the taxpayer will see a full return on its TARP investment.”
By now, many policymakers inside the Beltway presume that Americans have forgotten how Bush’s Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke originally sold the massive payout by claiming that taxpayers would eventually reap “returns” on their “investment” in Wall Street.
Today, we’re being told that we should be happy that we will get back even some of that money. So now we know the truth about the TARP: It wasn’t enacted to protect the economy. It was created for the purpose of covering up the greatest theft of taxpayer dollars in the history of the United States.
Only Americans with short memories were surprised by the new accusations of the FBI’s ongoing cover-up of the Oklahoma City bombing, as charged by Utah attorney Jesse Trentadue. It actually has been going on since about 2 p.m. on April 19, 1995—following five hours of honest reporting by news people on the scene.
The remarkable change in the official story and the twisting of the facts made it plain that the federal government and the controlled news media had collaborated to deceive us. The initial reports that we have maintained on videotape for the past 14 years reveal an altogether different story than what’s in the history books.
Immediately, the tragedy was thought to be (and reported as) a gas explosion from inside the building as evidenced by the immense amount of rubble blown out into the street and beyond. A worker from the newspaper office across the street later told us of the children’s toys from the Murrah nursery being blown through his windows. However, it took only a few minutes to cast aside the accident theory and realize that a bomb had exploded inside.
Next it was announced that this was not only some kind of terrorist attack but that an unexploded bomb was discovered in the rubble and was being removed by the Oklahoma County bomb squad. Soon there was another.
“The first bomb did go off,” says the OKC reporter. “The second and third explosives, if you can imagine this, were larger than the first. It is just incredible to think that there was that much heavy artillery that was somehow moved into the downtown federal building.”
Indeed it was, but such truth would lead to demands for an investigation that might reveal way too much information (just as the independent investigations later did) and had to be quashed.
These reports, of course, came before the federal government and a compliant national media could combine to massage the data, change the number of explosions to one, change its position to out in the street and change the bomb’s components to non-existent ammonium nitrate fuel oil (ANFO).
Gov. Frank Keating, a former FBI agent and high-ranking BATF official before his 1994 election to the state’s highest office, went on TV to say, “Obviously, whatever did the damage to the Murrah Building was a tremendous, a very sophisticated explosive device.”
“It had to have been done by an explosives expert,” said government officials.
During these news reports in the first few hours, we also saw hundreds of people fleeing down the street away from the Murrah Building when the FBI had announced the necessity of clearing the area because of the danger of the second and third devices being accidentally detonated during removal. Actually, it was a ploy to remove file cabinets and surveillance tapes with fewer witnesses.
By 2 o’clock, newsmen were singing a different tune, because Mayor Ron Norick had just told them that it was “a car bomb loaded with 1,200 pounds of ANFO, and we have confirmed that with the BATF.”
The reported 1,200 pounds would then begin to increase to 2,000, 3,000 and finally 4,800 pounds, by the next day—the amount necessary to meet the area’s damage.
However, this also required that the transporting vehicle be expanded to a “truck” because a car could not have handled the required load.
It was a total fabrication, as future tests and examinations showed no evidence whatsoever of any ANFO in the blast area. ANFO has two distinguishing characteristics following its detonation: lingering nitrate gas and flames.
Neither was present at the Murrah Building following the blasts. The only visible flames were the gasoline fires from the cars in the parking lot, and rescue workers were on the scene immediately without gas masks.
Before the case was three days old, the FBI didn’t want to hear any information that did not pertain to their two designated patsies: Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols.
County K-9 Deputy Don Browning was on the scene in the early minutes and was soon subjected to intentional disinformation, as later admitted to him by an FBI agent. He was told that “the Middle Easterners seen beating a hasty retreat from the scene in two cars and a yellow pickup truck” was a story made up to “confuse the news media.”
“Problem was, it confused the rest of law enforcement, too,” says Browning. He had also witnessed the FBI agents removing the surveillance cameras and tapes from their mounts. These were the tapes that the FBI denied even existed for more than 14 years before finally surrendering them last month, but only with doctored results.
“I got angry all over again last week,” Browning told AFP, “when they quit lying about the existence of those tapes and produced them.”
Oklahoma rancher Hoppy Heidelberg was on the federal grand jury and saw first-hand the railroading of the two patsies. When he complained and tried to investigate, as a grand juror should, he was kicked out and sent home by Judge David Russell. He was later delivered a surreptitious message telling him that “if I didn’t sue, they would let me live.”
An Oklahoma City police sergeant wasn’t so lucky. He was murdered the following year because he would not relent in his pursuit for truth. Stabbed 13 times and shot through the head, Terry Yeakey’s death in a rural cow pasture was ruled a suicide.
When Yeakey’s body was discovered, 40 uniformed officers combed the area for an hour in a search for the gun, without success. However, when FBI Special Agent in Charge Bob Ricks arrived by helicopter, it took him less than five minutes to “discover” a revolver in the grass near the body.
The official OKC bombing story has never been anything but a cover-up, and the FBI has been the chief architect of the cover-up from the beginning. SOurce: American Free Press
A number of “stop the vax” efforts are taking place across America amid persistent warnings of a possible mandated “swine flu” mass vaccination of the populace, with alternative and mainstream news reports ranging from ominous scenarios of a deliberately created pandemic and planned large-scale crippling and killing of the population on the one extreme, to casual “the shots are available if you want them” reports on the other extreme.
Military exercises are even cited as possible dress rehearsals for gunpoint vaccinations and quarantines.
Yet, other sources suggest a lot more normalcy: one Midwestern daily newspaper noted that those catching the “swine flu” should just stay home at least 24 hours “after fever breaks,” implying that it’s unlikely this flu will kill anyone. Precautions for those who are still well are simply to wash your hands often with soap or sanitizer for “at least 20 seconds.”
In this age of hard-hitting news on the Internet that feeble mainstream sources will not report—but with the potential for falsehoods, exaggerations and deliberately planted urban legends also present on the Internet—it’s no easy task to say with certainty just how hard county, state, U.S. and global H1N1/swine flu shot advocates will push to vaccinate the greater population in the coming weeks. Yet, the bottom line is that more and more people will not take the shot.
Considering the known dangers of adjuvants and other highly suspect ingredients in modern vaccines, refusing the shot itself and avoiding any kind of nasal vaccine in spray form seem to be the only sensible course—no matter what plot is brewing. The best vaccination is no vaccination.
News reports appeared October 6 showing health care workers in Indiana, Illinois and Tennessee taking the nasal vaccine, FluMist, like willing sheep. Indeed, what is just as disturbing as government medical tyranny is the servility of Americans, particularly health care workers, to blindly accept the H1N1 nasal spray vaccine, amid troubling allegations that the spray—which is heavy with live viruses—could enable the viruses to incubate in the nasal tissue and then be released into the air by sneezing. This spreads the virus, possibly starting the very pandemic that thus far has not materialized, contrary to World Health Organization claims.
No matter what, Americans must refuse the H1N1 vaccine in needle and nasal form. But Americans must go beyond that and change every law in every state and at the national level that requires vaccinations.
Americans can force authorities at all levels and the profit-seeking drug companies that make these vaccinations to back down in a major way, and to “clean house” regarding any current or future attempts by megalomaniacs and mindless believers in all aspects of modern medicine to imperil the fabric of society with sordid medical schemes.
There are a number of good signs of much-needed resistance out there. New York healthcare workers held a morning rally at the state capitol in Albany September 29 “to protest the new regulations mandating that all healthcare workers with patient contact receive all CDC ‘recommended’ flu vaccines… including the just licensed, un-safety-tested ‘swine flu’ 2009 ‘H1N1-A.’
Members of [Ron Paul’s] Campaign for Liberty are taking an active role in this rally,” as noted in a news bulletin posted at HealthFreedomUSA.org.
So, in the short term we must greet “the shot” and “the spray” with bald-faced refusal and press on to expose the vast medical fraud that is our current system.
Remember, the clamor for national healthcare is about giving Big Medicine even more money and covering only conventional medical treatments.
Call and write your local and state health departments, local media and state representatives, contact the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control, and annoy your member of Congress and your U.S. senators about this H1N1 “swine flu” situation. Make it known that the vaccine is not needed and is unacceptable in any form under any pretense. Source: American Free Press
"In a Democracy there is no right not to be offended. Anyone ought to be free to say whatever they like. If someone says things that are offensive, gratuitous and stupid, one has to assume there will be others able to demonstrate that what someone said was offensive, gratuitous and stupid."
"The holocaust is an ideological club, used to hold Germany in a vice like grip. In the early nineties these organisations discovered an opportunity to shake down European Governments and now they have run amok. They are pursuing blackmail and therefore they should be indicted and tried as criminals before the courts."
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. "
Below are links to various petitions we support. If you see one that interests you then please take action.
Make Congress Read Their Bills Before Voting
Make Congress read every word of every bill they create before they vote on it. Urge your Representative and your Senators to sponsor DownsizeDC.org's “Read the Bills Act” (RTBA).
TWIC - A Backdoor Real ID Card
Real ID is dying. But the Department of Homeland Security has a new plan to subject every American to a national ID card anyway. They plan to pick off one occupational field at a time, starting with the maritime industry. One man is fighting back. Meet him, and help stop this backdoor Real ID plan.
Make Congress pass DownsizeDC.org's “One Subject at a Time Act”
Most Americans probably believe a bill has to have majority support in Congress before it can become the law of the land. Sadly, this common sense expectation is totally wrong. Congressional leaders routinely pass laws that a majority opposes. DownsizeDC.org believes every bill should have to stand or fall on its own merits. Toward this end we have crafted the “One Subject at a Time Act” (OSTA).
End Bureaucratic "Legislation without Representation" with the "Write the Laws Act"
Unelected bureaucrats create tens-of-thousands of new dictates each year. Making rules is the job of Congress, not bureaucrats. DownsizeDC.org has drafted the “Write the Laws Act” to end bureaucratic “legislation without representation."
Bring John Shadegg's 'Enumerated Powers Act' to a Vote
t's time for Congress to, "Cite it, chapter and verse." Where do they derive their authority? When they pass new laws or spend taxpayer money, they should be required to point to specific language in the Constitution. The Enumerated Powers Act would require them to do precisely that. Help us bring this bill to a vote.
Top 11 Reasons You Should Fight Hate Laws
Unless we resist now, a thought crimes bureaucracy like those regulating Australia, Canada and Europe will soon rule America. In these nations, federal hate laws have destroyed citizens' rights to free speech. Punishment of politically incorrect bias is the ultimate goal of this legislation.
A national hate law would shatter Americans' First Amendment rights, which are now sadly unique among Western democracies. We would lose our precious freedom to express politically incorrect ideas, moral judgments, or whatever personal convictions the reigning thought police deem "hateful."
Think this can't happen in America? Think again.
Hostile work environment law and campus speech bans already severely curtail free expression in American workplaces and universities. A US federal hate law would follow the examples of Europe, Canada, and Australia where Christian pastors have been indicted simply for quoting politically incorrect Scripture in their sermons. Iceland's Orwellian hate law, for example, promises two years' jail if you verbally "insult" a person on the basis of their nationality, skin color, race, religion, or sexual orientation.
If a federal hate law were passed, free expression across the political spectrum would be threatened. What would happen to blasphemous art like Piss Christ or South Park, to Ann Coulter or Al Franken, to Christians protesting sodomy or homosexuals attacking the Bible? Every American, from left-leaning feminists to red state Republicans, should protest "anti-hate" legislation. If Rosie O'Donnell were an Icelander, she could have been prosecuted for verbal "assault" for her recent statement that radical Christianity is as dangerous as radical Islam. Political activists in nations with hate laws have already been indicted for criticizing Islam, Zionism, and homosexuality. Hate laws threaten your freedom to speak your mind, no matter what's on it.
Here are some of the most powerful, bipartisan reasons to fight this legislation.
1. Speech bans are a political weapon used by those in power to silence their opponents and politically unpopular minorities.
Hate laws empower the government to enforce the orthodoxy of whoever happens to be in charge. The government can define which biases or "hatreds" are unacceptable and which are okay. For instance, hate laws in our PC age allow women to derogate men but would silence men from legitimate (though possibly hurtful) speech like a discussion of biological gender differences.
In 2004 Swedish feminist Joanna Rytel wrote a hate-filled screed published in a major daily. Her article describes white men as arrogant, sex-obsessed and exploitative, explaining that Rytel just wants to "puke" on them. Stockholm authorities refused to indict Rytel under their hate law, saying it was passed to protect ethnic minorities, not white Swedes. This is one example of speech bans' uneven enforcement; they are used to punish certain kinds of hate and allow others.
Because almost every exercise of free speech offends someone, government officials would end up enforcing speech bans on the basis of their own bias. Speech bans simply can't be evenhanded unless everyone is shut up altogether.
In the real world, speech can and does wound. That's a cost of life. We naturally resent painful realities like economic competition, unfair comments, and hard work. But in each case, the cures we've tried were far worse than the sickness. Speech bans might censor some hurtful speech but would empower government to silence minorities and strip the intellectual marketplace of legitimate and needed expression-the kind that creates positive, social change precisely because it is minority and challenges the sins of the group.
2. Hate speech bans don't work.
Genuine racism and false hatreds exist in this world. Bans on hate speech, however, won't solve the problem. If you only break off a tick's body, its head will burrow deep beneath the skin. The only effective response to bad ideas is the truth. We should combat falsehoods with more and freer discussion, not less.
3. Hate laws aren't necessary.
ADL claims an epidemic of hate sweeps America that can only be fought with stiffened penalties for bias-driven crimes. Yet the FBI's 2005 Uniform Crime Report shows alleged hate crimes form a tiny 1/15 of 1 percent of all crime in America. Law enforcers' time would be far better spent fighting the 99.85 percent of crime that's happening every minute across our nation rather than getting entangled in discerning and testifying against the perceived motivations of a tiny minority of criminals.
Hate laws would require vast government bureaucracies, complicate law enforcement, and distract police and prosecutors from dealing with actual physical crimes. Government and law enforcement should focus on criminal acts, not words or motivations, in a nation where someone is murdered every 22 minutes, raped every 5, robbed every 49 seconds and burgled every 10 seconds. Discerning and prosecuting criminal motivations would only be a good plan if law enforcers had God's omniscience and time to waste. Ours have neither.
4. Hate speech bans are unconstitutional.
Because the First Amendment underwrites our most precious civil liberty, the US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled against speech bans. In 1972 the Court declared, "[A]bove all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its contents." (Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92)
Some forms of speech are restricted; these include threats and "fighting words" that incite "an immediate breach of peace." But these restrictions are (and must remain) extremely narrow and content-neutral-the government is not allowed to censor speech based on the viewpoint it expresses but only on whether it constitutes an immediate threat. Hate laws, however, would punish the viewpoints expressed in speech, in violation of the Constitution.
International use of ADL-designed hate laws shows that the first kinds of speech to be sanctioned are extreme right, white nationalist speech and Holocaust reductionism. The average person is slow to defend such speech. But hate laws quickly broaden to punish forms of expression the average citizen would never dream of stifling. Sweden's 2002 modified hate law, for example, explicitly exposes Christian sermons to prosecution!
All forms of controversial political and religious speech are potentially vulnerable to prosecution under hate laws. This contradicts Supreme Court Justice Holmes Jr. who said in 1929, "[I]f there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment [loyal defense] than any other, it is the principle of free thought-not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate."
5. Speech bans will be used against the very minorities they were meant to protect.
Speech bans silence some to protect the feelings of others. But when the government has power to silence expression that power can be wielded against the very people who once enjoyed its protection. Liberals, the champions of unrestrained speech in the 1960s, now vote as a bloc in Congress to support speech restrictions. Yet already in countries such as Canada, England and Australia, leftist critics of Islam have become the victims of hate laws, indicted for religious "hate speech."
Leftist artists Rowan Atkinson and Salman Rushdie realize hate laws don't just threaten white nationalists like David Duke but liberals as well- they recently fought for revision of Britain's hate law because it could be used to outlaw art that blasphemes or criticizes religion. Atkinson and Rushdie are just a few of hate laws' leftist critics who know that persons of all political persuasions have a stake in defeating this legislation.
6. Speech bans chill legitimate and valuable speech.
Under the threat of possible indictment, many people will refrain from discussing controversial but important ideas. Speech bans are often broad and vague, leaving citizens unsure what might get them hauled into court.
This is what has happened in American workplaces, where hostile work environment law has left many employees unsure what they can say. Many Americans avoid all controversial speech and voluntarily refrain from exercising First Amendment rights at work. Hate laws would extend this dangerous minefield to the national political scene.
Legal philosopher Edmond Cahn points out that speech bans would leave our bookshelves empty. "[T]he officials could begin by prosecuting anyone who distributes the Christian gospels, because they contain many defamatory statements not only about Jews but also about ChristiansThen the officials could ban Greek literature for calling the rest of the world "barbarians." Roman authors could be suppressed because when they were not defaming the Gallic and Teutonic tribes, they were disparaging the ItaliansThen there is Shakespeare, who openly affronts the French, the Welsh, the Danes" (Beyond the Burning Cross, E. Cleary, Random House, 1994)
7. Speech bans greatly reduce the possibility of healthy, democratic change.
Criminalizing speech that expresses "hate" or "bias" would require us to outlaw history's most valuable speech, especially the political and religious speech that threatens social stasis and ignites progress.
Aggressive speech is often the only tool available to political, social, or religious minorities whose access to government lobbying and mass media is limited. Those agitating for social change often need to use inflammatory and even "hateful" language to startle the public into hearing their message. Socrates compared himself to a horsefly biting the lazy flanks of his republic. We should certainly know enough by now to prefer the annoyance of stinging speech (even when we don't see its value) to a tyrannical majority that plods, unchallenged, toward slavery.
Americans are so used to our mudslinging, no-holds-barred political discourse that we find it hard to envision the way freedom of speech could disappear. But the freedom we enjoy is extremely rare in history, and quickly lost. Free expression for intellectuals is the first thing to go when tyrants rise to power; the history of oppressive regimes makes it clear that freedom of political speech is a delicate exception and the overarching tendency is for majorities or elites to get power and silence all opposition.
8. The government's interest in reducing violent crime does not outweigh our interest in preserving civil liberty.
Hate law advocates including the ADL argue that hateful speech incites violence, and appeal to the government's interest in reducing violent crime. But it would be unfair to ban, for instance, white racist speech or Christian sermons against homosexuality without also banning the plethora of other speech that might incite crime. Gangsta rap and videogames would be open to censure; we would also have to ban pornography, especially sadomasochistic porn, which certainly inspires violence against women.
Yet bans against these kinds of speech have been repeatedly declared unconstitutional. The government has an interest in lowering violent crime of all stripes but has always found the value of the First Amendment to be greater. It's unjust to argue that a few kinds of speech must be banned because they possibly incite violence (e.g., criticism of Jewish actions or homosexuality) yet permit huge categories of speech (violent sexual entertainment) that do the same. This would happen, however, under hate laws' unequal and partial enforcement. The ADL is not truly driven by the desire to reduce violent crime but rather to enforce a social and political orthodoxy.
Instead of passing a hate law that would shatter the First Amendment and impossibly complicate law enforcement, people concerned with hate-driven crimes should focus on improving our existing justice system and making sure hard crimes don't go unpunished.
9. Speech bans are offensively paternalistic.
They presume we can't think for ourselves, reject racist or hateful ideas for ourselves, or deal with the hurt caused by others' free expression. Are we such children that we need the government to cover our ears? Speech bans especially condescend toward the minorities they portray as helpless victims whose feelings must be sheltered from ideas they can't combat in a free intellectual market.
10. Speech bans permit government to do something an individual could not morally do.
Frederic Bastiat's classic treatise on The Law says government exists only to prevent injustice by defending our basic rights to person, liberty, and property. Government does not exist to guarantee our economic outcomes, redistribute our wealth, or protect our psyches. Speech bans would empower government to silence individuals by force. This is immoral whether it's one person silencing another person or the government silencing a fringe group of dissenters. Human fallibility requires at least enough humility to allow others to question, challenge, and dissent from our ideas. John Stuart Mill explains, "If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
11. Speech bans deny self-determination and individual freedom by criminalizing self-expression.
By censoring speech, hate laws censor thought and restrict our access to ideas. This is the essence of mind control. They deny the personal growth that comes from sharing ideas-including hateful, prejudiced, or false ideas-and having them challenged in a free intellectual marketplace.
Hate law speech bans have been repeatedly declared unconstitutional and would rend the very foundation of our freedom and democracy. Far from combating hate, The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act is actually the most hateful and enslaving legislation to ever reach Congress; it would invade states' rights in law enforcement, enabling a hate crimes bureaucracy to police our thoughts and expression. Government could censor by force all speech that dissents from the reigning orthodoxy. Every American must speak up now in defense of the freedom for which our forefathers gave their very lives.
Freedom of expression is one of the most fundamental rights that individuals enjoy. It is fundamental to the existence of democracy and the respect of human dignity. It is also one of the most dangerous rights, because freedom of expression means the freedom to express one's discontent with the status quo and the desire to change it. As such, it is one of the most threatened rights, with governments - and even human rights groups - all over the world constantly trying to curtail it.
Make your voice heard today or it will be silenced tomorrow.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government. . . lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
"Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle! Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
Edward R. Murrow
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it."
"“To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.”
"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists."
Martin Luther King Jr.
"An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law. "