Classified: Top Secret
The employees that are our government are increasingly secretive about their activities.
They even refuse requests filed under the Freedom of Information Act,
which We the People shouldn't need to get information that is ours anyway.
If they're not doing anything wrong, what do they have to hide?
Isn't that what they say to us when they want to violate all of our rights?
Except we are entitled to the information they have,
because they work for us, and we paid for that information.
It is unlawful for them to refuse to show us any information that we paid to have created.
It is also unlawful for them to demand, or just take our information.
Who do these servants think they are?
...
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Tragedy and Hope 101 interview with author Joe Plummer
==============================================================================
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Norman Dodd - The Hidden Agenda For World Government
==============================================================================
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
image: si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AO613_wl2101_G_20111130151910.jpg
videos: www.youtube.com/watch?v=J18h--LFW_8 and www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5eHdTk5hjw
A lot of information is confidential, and desirably so. Do we really want people walking into a bank and demanding to know our bank balance. Do we want people walking into our places of work and demanding to see our business plans. Do you really want government employees to release details of nuclear weapons, military resources, and preparedness to anyone who just asks.
The right to access confidential information is invested by perceived authority, as is acceptable to society as a whole. Hence, we accept that tax inspectors, and police officers, in the course of their work have an accountable access to certain information. However, the general access to information needs to be limited by the necessary functioning of society. Freedom of access to information is limited by the consideration of the impact of that information in a broader sense. There cannot be an automatic right to know given to any particular individual. The civil servant serves society, not the particular desires of an individual or group within a society.
ColdMonkey mines Gridcoin through generating BOINC computations for science...
there is no desirability of any secrecy by the government, whose powers arise from the consent of the governed, against the people from whom those powers arise.
a private bank balance has nothing to do with government keeping publicly funded information secret from those who have funded it.
this nuclear weapon argument is always the fall back. everyone should have nuclear weapons or no one should.
perceived authority is just that, perceived. it is a consensual delusion, a social fiction. i do not consent. i am not delusional. if i do not have my rights respected, there is no society. i do not mistake fiction for reality. the whole of society, in the USA, cannot vote away my rights.
all the rest of these arguments are built on the fallacies already addressed. the only answer to these arguments is "NO".
justification built on top of fraudulent, and fallacious justification does not amount to law. not even if it has been done that way for a hundred years. i do not consent, and i defy anyone to show me the contract, that i signed that says that i do.
civil servants serve We the People, not society. they serve each individual, not the group or the majority against the minority. we do not live in a democracy. this country is a constitutional republic.
A constitutional republic also provides for the interest of all the members of the republic, and that no member accept those duly authorized by election possesses power of will over another. If you want to assert authority over a civil servant, who chose to work for society as embodied in the state, then you have to be elected and envisaged with that authority.
ColdMonkey mines Gridcoin through generating BOINC computations for science...
none of this has anything to do with my rights or consent. it smacks of authoritarian sophistry.
But it does have everything to do with your rights and consent, because they only exist at the acceptance of other people's acceptance of you having those rights. Your ownership of the property you live in exists because the community around you recognises that ownership, and will support you if someone tries to derive you of it. During the Russian revolution, society changed its view on property ownership and the recognition of consent, and removed the right of ownership without compensation. Your rights and the recognition of your ability to consent to something are directly derived from the "will of the people."
my natural rights exist by merit of my existence in the natural world, and have nothing to to with the acceptance of others, except when i need to defend myself against a person or persons who would aggress against my rights. if i have the ability to defend myself against the populace, then there is no reason i should need popular acceptance for my rights to exist. this is a clear appeal to popularity.
Really? How about the number of children that go missing in national parks each year? Yep, that's one being denied access to.
Most of what is considered top secret militarily important information is shared with all of our supposed enemies. It sucks when RT reports on something that the freedom of information act has been denied. So, the only people who do not know are us little tax payers.
Information control is how the elite stay in power. They do not want to release their information. They want to keep lying to the public and getting away with it. They want to keep up THEIR narrative.
And all of your specific examples? Want details on those things? They are already out there. All you have to do is get ahold of some of that special sauce, and a really hard ball. And military preparedness? They are just scared of telling us the real truth that we have a paper military. The russians, with one jet, flew over one of our "advanced" ships and completely shut it down.
About your bank account. It is almost trivial for anyone to get your bank account information. Although, it is easier and faster to just guess. Look at your life style, your job, how you spend. I know people that can gauge your net worth to the dollar. AND the govern-cement already has all your account information. (down to the transaction level now)
I, by my existence in society, grant access to certain information by recognising the due invested authority to that information. Nonetheless, I chose to deny information to those who I feel may use it to my detriment. That a hacker could by criminal means obtain such information I have no doubt. It is for that reason that I rely upon the police and the justice system to provide protection from such assaults on my privacy.
you don'"grant" access to anything, they take what they want, unless you decide to not have a bank account, this is the only way to deny these criminals at present. the police and justice system do not exist to protect you, but only to, supposedly, prosecute crimes after they've already happened to you. this is not protection.
You do not surrender responsibility for your actions when you accept a role in society. You are still responsible for taking reasonable measures to protect yourself, as within the custom of the society in which you live. Few if any people keep a gun for protection in Europe, it simply is not needed. People do, however, ensure that they have secure doors and windows. We ensure we have adequate street lighting, and take reasonable precautions in isolated places. In 1998, I was mugged in the street during Carnival, and the mugger took 1000 pesetas from me, about $6 at today's value. I offered no resistance to the mugger and let him take the money, he had a very big knife. I reported it to the police, with a good description of the mugger, having spent time during the mugging to note distinctive facial characteristics. It took the police three days to locate him, and I was asked to testify in court. Which of course I agreed to. Once he saw me at court the mugger pleaded guilty and received a five year sentence, of which he served two. Two years in prison for $6, I hope he learnt his lesson. I simply trusted that the justice system would do a much better job of delivering justice, than any attempt I might have through putting up resistance to save $6, and risk a knife in the stomach.
I do not expect the police to provide a personal bodyguard, only to make a reasonable attempt to provide a sense of security in the environment in which I move.
i have not surrendered responsibility for my actions, and i never did accept any role in society. no role was ever contractually offered me.
have you seen the violent crime rates in Europe lately? you were mugged, and decided not to defend yourself. that was your choice. if i choose differently, and remain within the law, then i remain in honor. if someone threatens me with a knife, and i kill him, to stop the threat, i remain in honor.
your willingness to subjugate yourself to a corrupt and overreaching state does not change the existence of my rights, or responsibilities to myself.
Excellent post - the video interview with Tragedy & Hope 101 author Joe Plummer is a must watch, as is the Norman Dodd video (a true pioneer with first-hand experiences and eye-witness accounts) - especially for anyone that does not believe that there is a very sophisticated and very advanced global conspiracy to enslave mankind!
If you are already aware of this conspiracy I still recommend that you watch both videos.
They touch on many of the most important facts and some of the more modern history of the New World Order, its secret societies, its takeover of Gov't and the education system, its covert operations, it's funding, its simaltaneous support of the USSR (and USA) during the Cold War and so much more.
Please watch it - we live in the matrix and not enough people know it!
Resteemed
agreed. it is an amazing interview, and the very inspiration for this post.
thank you for your comment.
thank you so much for the resteem.
Hey lifeworship, you seem to have accidentally muted me in the conversational thread we were having. To quote you;
Which suggests that you would prefer to resort to violence in the face of what you regard as an infringement on your right to have power over others by natural order. Kind of Conan the Barbarian approach to civilisation. So are you suggesting you are willing to forego the right to a criminal investigation in the event of you failing to protect yourself adequately, or to pursue justice for criminal acts against you by other Conan the Barbarians. I think not. You cannot claim any right to live outside and independent of civilisations requirements. That is a general move into barbarity. You simply cannot take what you want simply by claiming the right to do so.
self defense is not violence. violence is the uninitiated use of force. if someone is violating my rights, they have already used violence against me. self defense is the only response indicated. i do not seek power over others. i only require that they do not seek to violate my natural rights.
the government has, time and again, proven itself incapable and/or unwilling to do it's job, as defined by The Constitution, so it falls to me to do it myself. the government has committed more criminal acts against me than anyone else. should i wait for them to investigate themselves?
your other claims lack an understanding of context, and cannot be responded to without greater understanding on your part. individual liberty does not equate to "Conan world".
if i accidentally, or otherwise, muted you, this comment would not appear either. i did not.