OpEdNews Op Eds

Freedom - Freedom - Freedom

By       Message Joe Plummer     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It


- Advertisement -
George Bush is the embodiment of freedom. In fact, if freedom were a God, George Bush would be the son of that God. He quite literally is "freedom incarnate."

As such, despite what whack jobs would have you believe, nothing George Bush does can undermine freedom. To suggest otherwise is sheer lunacy; like suggesting the sun is undermining daylight.

Yes, rays of freedom beam from George Bush like rays of light from our beaming sun. His freedom loving rays strike the earth each day and provide vital sustenance to new and interesting expressions of freedom.

Secret torture prisons dot the globe; their roots anchored in the freedom to secretly arrest, torture and hold civilians indefinitely without charges. Wars of aggression rage and now millions bath in the freedom that only chaos, death and depleted uranium can provide. Here at home, the freedom to be searched, spied on, and assaulted by men in black ski masks has never been higher. -Blessed are we for the innumerable gifts of our decider.

It's high time we rid ourselves of those unable (or unwilling) to recognize the benefits of our new improved freedom. We've suffered their insanity far too long. Those who speak of "restrictions" on government power and "accountability" in matters of law are the enemies of America; nay, the enemies of civilization itself!

These heathens (if given a chance) would force the tyranny of personal responsibility on us all. They'd chain the Benevolent One, bind his hands, and reduce him to the status of a mere servant! What kind of animal would seek this? What Un-American scum would put the so called "rights of the people" above the fountainhead of freedom itself?

Are we really to believe their foolish interpretation of "The Constitution?" Are we to take seriously their assertion that "the rights" enumerated in it were meant to apply to the masses? How utterly ridiculous is that? How could we ever establish, expand, and sustain an "all powerful" government under such a system? The State would no longer be at the top; it would be sent to the bottom! It would become the people's servant instead of the other way around! I ask you: Could a more untenable environment for freedom be conceived?

Consider just a few possibilities:
- Advertisement -

Imagine if "Freedom of Speech" actually applied to the people. People speaking with absolute freedom might say things that undermined our leaders! They might criticize or contradict our government! Anyone with any sense has to realize our founding fathers would have never wanted such a thing.

Freedom of speech for the government; of course! The government needs to be able to speak (unchallenged) in order to mobilize the people for their own benefit. But complete freedom of speech for the masses; NO WAY! Freedom of speech for the people must end where disagreement with the government begins.

"The right to keep and bear arms;" are you kidding me? Are you seriously trying to tell me our founding fathers wanted Americans to keep their own firearms? Have we learned nothing from history? Mao, Hitler, Stalin, none of these leaders could have achieved even half of what they did if they hadn't first disarmed the people. True, there is some disagreement about their ideology, but on this fact there is no disagreement: The State cannot complete its natural metamorphosis into a mechanism of absolute control so long as the people are armed.

Just as indigenous people always resist the benevolence of occupying armies, so too would the people of America resist the benevolence of an all powerful police state. The people simply don't know what's best for them and because so, they must be disarmed to make final subjugation possible.

Clearly, the founding fathers only wanted the government to have weapons...In the final equation; it's the only way to implement the government's highest freedom (the freedom to do whatever it wants without fear of meaningful resistance.)
- Advertisement -

I could go on. I could address "privacy rights" and "rights to trial by jury" and all other manner of nonsense cited as "the people's rights" in the Constitution. But why bother? All of these things (if applied to the masses) would only serve to weaken the government. As such, we can only conclude these "rights" were intended for government officials only. And with that said, let's get back to the original point of this message:

George Bush is now the supreme leader of the United States of America. Because he is freedom incarnate, any argument claiming his actions are undermining freedom is absurd. Also absurd; any assertion that he is eroding the so called "people's rights." In point of fact, no such rights exist but by decree of the supreme leader himself. Soon, the State will be elevated to the status of God. You will not work, you will not travel, you will not bank, you will not even be able to buy food without its permission. Like it or not, this is what America was meant to be. Repent now traitors, or suffer the consequences.


- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

Joe Plummer is a man who aims to destroy the Criminal Elite's system of exploitation. When not figuring out ways to do so, he enjoys relaxing in the mountains of New Hampshire with his wife and dogs.

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The 9/11 Lie is in Critical Condition

Something For Nothing

Freedom - Freedom - Freedom

If it stopped a terrorist attack, would it be OK?

The 911 Truth Movement