“Government today has clearly overstepped the mark of its delegation. It behaves as the master, not the servant, of people. And while government exerts control not just over the processes of redress available (ie. courts, congress), it also exerts control through manipulation of media over what grievances are ever publicly discussed, and how.” – E I Smith
Law is meant to protect the inalienable rights of people. But the Patriot Act acts. It does not protect human rights. It is not real patriotism. It imposes the will of institutional government upon people, at the expense of the rights inherent to our humanity.
The First Amendment in the U.S.A. Bill of Rights is the original patriot act. The First Amendment is the formula for true patriotism; a prescription to non-violently oppose monopolistic isms, and isms of all sorts. It is the way in which change is conducted without hostile confrontation. In this way, the First Amendment is the very definition of patriotism.
There are five distinct parts to the First Amendment. These five distinctions spell out five separate rights of freedom, and five stages essential to patriotic action: think, seek, speak, stop, act.
These five rights and actions of patriotism were formulated by the original patriots through their diplomatic, rhetorical and martial experience against the forces of the most powerful empire the world had known. In fact, the Bill of Rights was originally proposed as a measure to appease the Anti-Federalist movement, which opposed extending the influence and authority of the U.S. federal government out of concern that the position of President might evolve into a monarchy – which it has.
All other Amendments are straightforward and pertain to particulars, whereas the First Amendment is an amalgamation of many subjects because it is the explanation of patriotism, protected as an inalienable right. Yet, throughout recent history, the individual rights described in the First Amendment have been coercively and institutionally stomped out, traded in for “security” from some institutionally-conjured threats and fear based assumptions.
Patriotism Defined
Continue reading →
Sean Adl-Tabatabai – Google executives have argued that free speech would have “disastrous practical consequences” for society, in a stunning court document filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.