Your opening post was:


Freedom of speech is an integral part of a free society such as the one we live in... assuming, of course, that we do.


Are you assuming that we do?

Some 'societies' are more free than others. The illusion of freedom is all we currently have.

The difference between freedom and the illusion of freedom is that freedom cannot be taken away from us so easily.

The illusion of freedom can. Easily.

The laws are in place to take our illusion away at any time. New laws restricting our right to bare arms... are in the process. Once we are disarmed, we are lost. Freedom is lost.

Whether or not 'they' choose to maintain the illusion of freedom is their choice. We will have little power over that. We may well be at their mercy.

"There is a 'they' and they are out to get us." (Henry Kissinger quote.)

There are some people who live in the United States but cannot perceive the opportunities that are available to them because of certain personality traits.

Off topic.

Not off topic. We are convinced we fight for FREEDOM. Freedom of speech included. If there is no freedom, there would be nothing to fight for except our own survival.... which would not include invading a third world country and bombing the hell out of it.

This section of your response is at the heart of my focus. There are limitations to all freedoms. This must necessarily be the case or else freedom would become atrophy. Pure personal freedom would have no legal consequences. In order for everyone to be free in their pursuit of happiness, then public protection from dangerous individuals is a necessity. That invokes the need for laws.

Here you simply state the extremely obvious. So what is your point exactly?

I am happy to be in America but I am not so blind that I do not see what is going on and who is in charge. I took off those rose colored glasses a few years ago. Oppressive? You have not seen anything yet...


The agenda is a One World Government, and a One World Religion. The objective is just business as usual plain and simple. Own the earth. Install a king. (Or Dictator)

They called it a government in Hitler's Germany too. Yes, I have a say... so far. I am saying it now. I am telling the truth to anyone who will listen.

Quite disturbing actually.

I truly hope its all in my mind. I truly hope I am delusional. Truly I do.

No need for hope when actuality finally corresponds to personal reality.

It is and you are...

Ultimately, freedom of speech plays a major role in keeping the playing field level.

Did you ever go to a presidential rally wearing the wrong tee-shirt or carrying the wrong sign and get escorted to the "free speech zone" by officers? It is a few blocks away from the rally and surrounded by a chain linked fence with barbed wire atop of it. They don't bring you any water.

What exactly was "wrong" with the sign or shirt in question?

Is there not a right to assembly?

Should this not include a right to a peaceful assembly?

When this is the case, then the assembly is for those who support the cause, no matter what the cause may be, within the limits of our legal rights.

If the focus of an assembly is being blatently interrupted by opposing viewpoint, then the peacefulness of the said assembly is removed, and the actions of the opposing side are seen as being in violation of the assembly rights of the participants. The people in question should organize their own assembly for their own reasons to support the other side, without infringing upon the inalienable rights of the other assemblers.



It is the American way.

Okay then you are saying you support the idea that anyone who does not support the President in his campaign, should not be allowed to assemble to hear him speak.

You are saying that only his fans and supporters are allowed. No matter how quiet and peaceful they are. And if the President is in favor of the war in Iraq, anyone who wears a tee-shirt with the word "Peace" on it can be assumed to be against the war monger president and should be taken away (arrested) and put into a holding area (chain linked fence with barbed wire) until it is over.

NOT what I said.

To you have a real situation to propose?

IF someone is peaceful and wears a sign or shirt with an opposing viewpoint to an assembly, then they are not violating another's rights and are completely within their own rights to be there.

The media would love to expose such an alleged set of circumstances as you are claiming.

I just, once again, do not believe your account has much accuracy when considering the totality of the elements involved regarding the situation. A person will not be escorted away from a presidential rally for just wearing a shirt that has a peace sign on it.

Discernment.

At LSU on Friday, May 21st, "Free Speech," as designated by law, was only to be allowed for "anti-war" citizens that were willing to stand in a roped-off 35 foot square, 100 feet from the road. My sign said "Veterans For Peace, No WAR" on one side, and "The DUBYA--M-D's ARE IN THE WHITE HOUSE" on the other. Not exactly controversial. Not exactly threatening. It just said that I`m against this Iraq "war," and I don`t like this President. I have been against this war since way before it even started, and I will be that way until the last U.S. soldier is home from there.

We had a legal permit to demonstrate against this war and President Bush, a permit from the Secret Service, as enforced by the LSU police. When our group of demonstrators arrived on Dalrymple Drive that morning to protest this visit, an LSU policeman told us that we had to stand in a 35-foot fenced-in square, exactly 100` from Dalrymple Drive, for "security" reasons, under the threat of arrest if we didn't. We refused to stand in that thing, but we did not get arrested. (It would have been funny if all the protestors had stood in the little square and said "MOO" over and over, like cattle do.)

Directly across the street from the "free speech zone," about 25 "pro-Bush" citizens stood along the curb and waited for the President. I was selected as spokesman for our group, so I asked the LSU police Sarge, "Why can those people stand along the curb but we can`t?" The Sarge said, and I quote, "Because they are pro-Bush, and they don`t have signs".... damn, it was my sign's fault!

This was not an exception. It was the common policy of the Bush administration. Everywhere he went.

I hope Obama does not follow suit.

There are pending court cases on this kind of oppression of free speech.

Keep in mind that there is always pertinent information regarding cases of national security which is unknown to the general public, and must be so in order to avoid mass hysteria.

Theres some meat for the uniniated.

Lets see what one of their most prominent members has to say:

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

David Rockefeller

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

David Rockefeller... Baden-Baden, Germany 1991

"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." -David Rockefeller, from his own book, Memoirs.


But sure, the CFR is just some think tank.


As far as the alien thing goes, I'm not on one side or the other as it pertains to this topic, but I'll put this out there, go look into the historical references of all the old world religions and even some of the ones operating today and you'll find repeated references to these intelligent serpent or reptile people. The Ancient Sumerians, whose cultural artifacts predate the bible by some 3000 years tells a creation story that involves Reptillian like creatures who descend from the sky to milk this planet of it's resources, rather than do the work themselves, they created the Sumer peoples (In what is today Iraq and what was Babylon).

Dragons who spoke to the emperors of Japan, China and Korea. Dragons and serpents in the Bible, The ThunderBirds of the Hopi, the Serpent road of the Maya. Is it possible that we are a species that has amnesia of their own history? Maybe not probable, but at the very least plausible?

No Plot to take over the world? Look at the facts from the horses mouth.