American Freedoms

 American Freedoms

Thomas Allen

The 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence has arrived. Now is the time to reflect upon the liberties, freedoms, and rights that the Founding Fathers fought for and sought to preserve. Unfortunately, Americans have lost many, even most, of these liberties, freedoms, and rights. Sadly, people born in recent decades never had a chance to enjoy most of them. A short list follows.

1. Bill of Rights. People enjoy all the rights guaranteed and protected by the Bill of Rights unless the federal government disagrees. The Founding Fathers believed that the rights identified in the Bill of Rights were absolute and transcended and existed before government. However, today’s ruling oligarchs consider them relative, that is, governmentally granted privileges that can be withdrawn at any time and for any reason.

2. Freedom of Travel. The Ninth Amendment and its equivalent in State constitutions prohibit the federal and State governments from preventing or otherwise hindering the popular means of travel. In the early days, travel was by means of horses, boats, and then trains. Now, it is by automobiles and airplanes. Today, Americans are free to have governments hinder and even prevent travel by the present popular means (automobiles and airplanes). People need the government’s permission to travel by automobile; they need a driver’s license, insurance, etc. 

Additionally, they are free to travel on commercial airliners if the federal government allows them. Moreover, if they travel by air, they are treated like criminals but with fewer rights than a criminal. The federal government presumes all passengers are terrorists until proven otherwise, i.e., passengers are guilty until they prove their innocence. Also, the federal government violates their right to privacy with unconstitutional searches. (What would people have done in the nineteenth century if the federal government required stagecoach passengers and their luggage to be searched before they were allowed on a stagecoach? They probably would have beaten, if not killed, the agent.)

3. Freedom to Promote One’s Heritage. People are free to defend and promote their heritage and culture if that heritage and culture are not White, especially Southern. White, especially Southern, heritage and culture do not have the right to exist.

4. Schools. People are free to send their children to public schools where they can graduate with a high school diploma, despite some graduates being so illiterate that they cannot read their diplomas. Moreover, people are free to have public schools indoctrinate their children to be obedient slaves of the ruling oligarchs. Sadly, most do not even realize that they are slaves.

5. Welfare. The unproductive are free to enslave the productive to support them.

6. Corporate Welfare. People are free to be forced to bail out banks and other companies run by incompetent or greedy managers who have political influence or are deemed by the federal government to be too big to fail.

7. Money. Instead of deciding for themselves how much money the economy needs, the people have the freedom of the federal government, in collaboration with banks through the Federal Reserve System, to decide the quality and quantity of money. Moreover, people are free to be forced to use debt, Federal Reserve notes, as money instead of commodities like gold and silver that are no one’s liability. Thus, people are free to live with and use money that continuously loses purchasing power.

For additional lost freedoms, see “Freedom” by Thomas Allen.

The Founding Fathers would rebel against the above freedoms and rights. They would be ashamed of their descendants for throwing away the liberties, freedoms, and rights for which they fought.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Allen.

More political articles.

White Privilege

White Privilege

Thomas Allen

Whites are accused of having “White Privilege,” which supposedly gives them all sorts of advantages over and at the expense of nonwhites, especially Blacks. “White Privilege” is the unearned assets, advantages, and benefits that White people have merely because they are White. Whites have what they have solely because of their skin color.

   In “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack,” Peggy McIntosh identifies 50 things that she considers “White Privilege.” Some of them are absurd, irrelevant, and insignificant. A few insult Blacks. Some result from the desire of Blacks to be thought highly of by other Blacks. Even a few are wrong: The opposite is true. However, a few are correct. [See “Black Privilege” by Thomas Allen.]

The following is a short, but incomplete, list of the privileges that Whites have today. They greatly disagree with McIntosh’s list of privileges.

1. The privilege of being second-class citizens in the country that their ancestors founded and built.

2. The privilege of having their God-given unalienable rights as citizens of a State subordinated to civil rights granted by Congress and federal agencies to nonwhites.

3. The privilege of being led by Albusphobic Whites.

4. The privilege of being obligated to be disloyal to the White race.

5. The privilege of not defending the interests of the White race.

6. The privilege of being denied equal rights and equal protection under the law.

7. The privilege of having the legal system weaponized against them (lawfare) instead of having the legal system protect them.

8. The privilege of going to prison for trying to save the life of a Black thug as happened to  Derek Chauvin.

9. The privilege of being the victim of Black criminals (see “The Dirty War: America’s Race War” by Thomas Allen).

10. The privilege of being the only race that can commit hate crimes.

11. The privilege of going to jail for peacefully protesting while nonwhites, especially Blacks, are rewarded for highly destructive riots.

12. The privilege of dying in foreign wars for people and institutions that loathe them.

13. The privilege of not being allowed to hear political speeches at church while nonwhite churches can have political speeches.

14. The privilege of being domestic terrorists.

15. The privilege of having less qualified nonwhites hired for a job instead of more qualified Whites because of race.

16. The privilege of losing their jobs to nonwhites.

17. The privilege of being fired because they are White.

18. The privilege of being victims of affirmative action and racial quotas.

19. The privilege of having nonwhites steal the credit for discoveries, inventions, and works of Whites.

20. The privilege of granting nonwhites benefits and privileges that Whites never enjoyed.

21. The privilege of being sacrificed for racial justice.

22. The privilege of being responsible for the substandard behavior of Blacks.

23. The privilege to support nonwhites.

24. The privilege of having their country destroyed.

25. The privilege of having their culture destroyed.

26. The privilege of having their history destroyed.

27. The privilege of having statues and memorials of Whites destroyed.

28. The privilege of participating in the destruction of statues and memorials of Whites.

29. The privilege of not segregating while nonwhites may segregate.

30. The privilege of not being allowed to attend meetings of nonwhites.

31. The privilege of not discriminating against nonwhites while nonwhites may discriminate against Whites.

32. Privilege of being discriminated against and not being allowed to object to such discrimination without being penalized.

33. The privilege of having nonwhites refer to Whites with racial slurs and being sued if responding by referring to nonwhites with racial slurs.

34. The privilege of being the only race that has to endure hate speech.

35. The privilege of enjoying wokeism.

36. Privilege of being the only race that can be racist.

37. The privilege of not being allowed to speak about race except to degrade Whites.

38. The privilege of worshiping archconservative St. Martin Luther King the Divine. 

39. The privilege of being racial nihilists while not allowed to be racial supremacists or racial preservationists although nonwhites may be racial supremacists or racial preservationists (See “Views on Race” by Thomas Allen.)

40. The privilege of practicing the new morality of scarifying the White race on the altar of humanity while not allowed to practice the old morality of preserving their race although nonwhites can practice the old morality of preserving their races (See “Old Morality – New Morality” by Thomas Allen.)

41. The privilege of being loathed by nonwhites, especially Blacks.

42. The privilege of hating themselves and their race.

43. The privilege of living in environments that are hostile to Whites.

44. The privilege of being victims of racism.

45. The privilege of being marginalized.

46. The privilege of being humiliated.

47. The privilege of feeling guilty about being White.

48. The privilege of being victims of antiwhite inquisitions.

49. The privilege of not having their lives matter.

50. The privilege of having less qualified nonwhites admitted to a university instead of more qualified Whites because of race.

51. The privilege of having their children taught to hate their race.

52. The privilege of not being allowed to protect their children.

53. The privilege of having their education lowered to accommodate nonwhites, especially Blacks.

54. The privilege of enduring diversity training and sensitivity training.

55. The privilege of being indoctrinated with Critical Race Theory.

56. The privilege of not having college courses designed specifically for Whites.

57. The privilege of being stupid and apathetic;

58. The privilege of trying to placate nonwhites whose lust for vengeance can never be satisfied, for example, many Blacks.

59. The privilege of being degraded and bullied for being White.

60. The privilege of being masochists.

61. The privilege of being held to a higher standard than nonwhites.

62. The privilege of being blamed for all of the world’s problems and being considered the cancer of the universe.

63. The privilege of being guilty of all evils until proven innocent, which they can never do.

64. The privilege of the sin of whitism, a sin of which they can never repent.

65. The privilege of kowtowing and groveling to unappreciative nonwhites, especially Blacks.

66. The privilege of begging nonwhites, especially Blacks, for forgiveness for things that Whites have never done.

67. The privilege of being demonized.

68. The privilege of having their reputation destroyed. 

69. The privilege of being penalized because of their massive contribution to mankind.

70. The privilege of being replaced by nonwhites.

71. The privilege of not having a homeland while all other races may have a homeland.

72. The privilege of participating in their own annihilation.

73. The privilege of being abolished, i.e., genocide.

74. The privilege of being the stupidest race to ever exist.

75. The privilege of being the most frightened cowards who ever existed.

According to diversity, inclusion, and equity (DIE) adherents, all the aforementioned White privileges are unearned benefits that Whites enjoy and that give them advantages over other races. Merely by being born White, they earn these privileges. Because of their White supremacy, they refuse to share these privileges with others.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles,

American Police State

American Police State

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was written in 2002, shortly after the enactment of the so-call PATRIOT Act]

    In defending his newly imposed restrictions on legal rights, President Bush said that “the Constitution is sacred” and that it will not be undermined in his war against terrorism. His actions contradict his words.
    He has had American citizens arrested and imprisoned without charges, hearings, or convictions and without access to an attorney or anyone else. Apparently, he can have anyone arrested and imprisoned indefinitely merely by labeling that person as “an enemy combatant.” The victim is not allowed to appeal this charge. This action violates the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, to be informed of the charges, to confront witnesses, and to have a lawyer.
    The Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) is building several large detention (prison) camps across the country. These centers may be used to imprison people who refuse an untested toxic vaccination, dissenters, segments of the population declared “enemy combatants,” terrorists like constitutionalists and Christians who believe that these are the last days, and others whom Bush deems undesirable.
    Bush endorsed and rapidly pushed through a scared, cowardly Congress his Anti-Patriot bill. This bill was not even available for Congressmen to read until after they had passed it.
    Under this law, federal agents can monitor conversations between a prisoner and his attorney. Such monitoring violates the Sixth Amendment.
    Court hearings can be, and are being, held in secret The Sixth Amendment requires trials to be public.
    The Anti-Patriot Act also makes a mockery of the Fourth Amendment. Now almost no restrictions are placed on searches and seizures. Probable cause is no longer needed for search warrants. (When Congress asked the Justice Department how many subpoenas had been issued under the Anti-Patriot Act, the Justice Department told Congress that the information was classified and could not be released. Nearly every time that the Bush Administration does is classified and cannot be released. Why all the secrecy? What is Bush trying to hide? The police state that he has given America.)
    Legal barriers to the police searching library records have been greatly reduced. These searches include removing hard drives of computers from libraries. Not only can the police view the Internet usage of a suspect, but they can also view the usage of everyone else who has recently used that computer. Until now, what one read was protected under the First Amendment. The Anti-Patriot Act has voided this First Amendment Protection.
    The only things that remain sacred are that racial profiling will not be used and the borders will not be closed to immigrants. Racial profiling and closing the borders to immigrants are not unconstitutional.
    Bush is knowingly, or possibly unknowingly, falling into an old standard Communist trap. A common Communist tactic is to commit terrorist acts to cause the government to react with oppression. The typical government reaction to terrorism is to clamp down on the freedom of the people. More terrorist acts are followed by more freedom-restricting reactions by the government. Soon the people are living in a police state that is nearly as oppressive as what the Communist would have imposed. Discontent and rebellion are often the results.
    If Bush were really serious about defeating terrorism, he would bring all the U.S. troops scattered across the globe home and use them to seal the borders to all immigrants. (He would also respect the posse comitatus law and refuse to allow troops to participate in law enforcement or to patrol American streets.) He would reduce immigration to zero. (The Mexican invasion is far more detrimental to American welfare than anything that Iraq, Hussein, bin Laden, al-Qaeda, or any other Arabic terrorist group could inflict.) He would institute a vigorous program to round up and deport all illegal immigrants. When an immigrant’s visa expired, he would have to return home.
    Instead of violating the Constitution to fight terrorism, Bush should use it. Anyone who is suspected of terrorism or collaborating with terrorists should be tried quickly in open court. If convicted, he should be sentenced to the fullest extent of the law. Any high-ranking governmental official who knew about the 9-11 attack, aided the terrorists in the attack, concealed information that could have prevented it, or otherwise aided the terrorists should be publicly executed.
    Instead of seeking to curb private ownership of firearms, Bush should be openly and vigorously encouraging it. He would push to repeal federal laws that impede private ownership of firearms. A highly armed citizenry is not only the best defense against terrorism, but it is also the best defense against a despotic police state.
    Bush would replace our Zionist Middle East foreign policy with a more even-handed one that did not favor either side. He would withdraw the United States from the United Nation and all those entangling alliances created under the authority of the United Nations including NAFTA and GATT. He would embargo trade with China, North Korea, Syria, Saudi-Arabia, and other countries whose governments support terrorists or whose governments allow private citizens to support terrorists.
    Instead of administering the government in secrecy, Bush would open the government up to public inspection. With the possible exceptions of weapons technology, manufacturing trade secrets, the identity of undercover agents, activities related to criminal investigations, and the like, he should declassify and unseal all governmental records and make them available to the public. If we have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then the people need to know what the government is doing. Bush would make public all records concerning the 9-11 attack. He would release everything that could reveal who knew what when.
    If Bush’s goal is to turn the United States into a despotic police state with troops on the street where citizens fear both the government and terrorists, he is traveling the right road. If his goal is to defeat terrorism, protect the Constitution, and restore American freedom, he needs drastically change course.

Copyright © 2002 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Some Comments on People and Organizations

Some Comments on People and Organizations

Thomas Allen

 

Discussed below are the difference between terrorists and defenders of freedom, what Lincoln and King have in common, Limbaugh and conspiracy, the firing of Khrushchev, the Logan Act, the American Institute of Economic Research, and the Abbeville Institute.

Terrorists Versus Defenders of Freedom

What is the difference between a cowardly terrorist and a courageous defender of freedom? A cowardly terrorist wears a bomb on a bus and blows up himself and a busload of people. A courageous defender of freedom sits in the cockpit of a multimillion-dollar fighter jet and fires missiles from a hundred miles away into a crowded street.

What do Lincoln and King Have in Common?

What do Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King have in common? Both were assassinated. If they had not been assassinated, they would have gone down in history as scumbags. Assassination deified them. Consequently, assassination was the best thing to ever happen to them.

Limbaugh and Conspiracy

Rush Limbaugh used to call conspiracy theorists, most of whom are conspiracy scientists, kooks and implied, if not claim, that conspiracies do not exist. Now, he describes the Deep State, which he often calls a cabal, the way that most conspiracy scientists describe the conspiracy that controls the United States government and works to create a global state with a one-world government. Since he describes the Deep State as a conspiracy, although he does not use the word, does he now believe in conspiracies? If so, does this mean that he is a kook?

The Firing of Khrushchev

Nikita Khrushchev goes on vacation to a Black Sea resort. David Rockefeller goes to Moscow while Khrushchev is on vacation. Khrushchev returns from his vacation to learn that he has been fired as the primer and as First Secretary of the Communist Party. Coincidence or causation?

Accidental historians, i.e., establishment or orthodox historians, fail to see any connection between Rockefeller and the dismissal of Khrushchev. Most accidental historians claim that Leonid Brezhnev led a coup against Khrushchev. (Curiously, many accidental historians consider Brezhnev’s action against Khrushchev a conspiracy, although they assert that conspiracies do not exist and condemn historians who write about conspiracies.) Did Brezhnev need Rockefeller’s approval before overthrowing Khrushchev? Or, did Rockefeller order Brezhnev to fire Khrushchev?

Logan Act

The Logan Act, which was enacted in 1799, prohibits a private citizen from corresponding with foreign governments or governmental officials without the approval of the United States government. It reads in part:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

How do the American members of the Bilderberg Group avoid violating the Logan Act? The Bilderberg Group is a group of international globalists (illuminists) who gather to discuss international and national policies and the implementation of these policies in their home countries. During meetings of the Bilderberg Group, private American citizens are communicating with officers of foreign governments. The answer is that these private American citizens are the rulers, the real government of the United States. They own the politicians and high-ranking bureaucrats.

American Institute of Economic Research

I have been following the American Institute of Economic Research (AIER) off and on for nearly 50 years. AIER has deteriorated when compared with the early 1970s — the days when its founder Edward Harwood ran it. In recent years, AIER has adopted a strongly anti-South position. Such an attitude is strange since the South has historically been a staunch opponent of protective tariffs, which AIER ardently opposes. Its hostility toward the South is indistinguishable from that of the Puritan Yankee, who until recent years, has always been a strong proponent of protective tariffs.

Abbeville Institute 

Abbeville Institute produces many great pro-South articles. It is a leading defender of the South and the Confederacy. Unfortunately, many (some?, most?) of its writers are like most other Whites: They are racial nihilists, who have abandoned the old morality of preserving the races for the new morality of sacrificing the races, especially the White race, on the altar of humanity. 

Moreover, like most conservative Whites, they have exalted Martin Luther King as the greatest paragon of American conservatism and the epitome of conservative values. Instead of being a communist sympathizer and a frontman for the Communist Party, he has become an advocate of all the virtues and values that conservatives hold dear. Moreover, he loved Southerners and did not seek their destruction although everything that he advocated has led to their destruction. He is presented as a great uniter of the races, although he promoted policies that have led to a great hatred of and hostility toward the White race. So great is this hatred and hostility that most Whites, including many writers at the Abbeville Institute, support policies designed to kill the White race. 

These writers at the Abbeville Institute need to adopt a racial attitude similar to that of most of the writers of the American Renaissance. Only by openly supporting and promoting the preservation of the White race can the Abbeville Institute hope to save Southerners and the South. (For a start, they can cease lumping Whites and Blacks who live in the South together as “Southerners.” “Southerner” properly identifies an ethnic group of Whites whose ancestors were born and reared in the South and White who have lived in the South long enough to become indistinguishable from native Southerners. Blacks who live in the South are properly identified as Southern Blacks, which is a different ethnic group than Southerners. Moreover, they can identify King as a Communist sympathizer who advanced the communist agenda and not one of the great fathers of American conservatism.)

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

A Letter: South Africa

A Letter: South Africa

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is a letter written in 1986 responding to an article by Ms. Frances Kendall in Reason magazine.]

    The solution to South Africa's problem offered by Frances Kendall is interesting. If implemented, I would be surprised that her solution would work without some significant changes. Based on the information in her article, her solution contains several major flaws.
    First, she recommends drawing cantonal boundaries without regard to tribal or racial boundaries. Thus, she proposes to commit the same error that has been committed in the rest of Africa. The colonial powers drew political boundaries with little regard to tribal or ethnic boundaries. When they withdrew, the colonial boundaries remained. The result of this disregard for tribal and ethnic boundaries has led to oppression and bloodshed all over Africa. This has happened in spite of the constitutions that most of these countries have which guarantee all sorts of rights for the people. There is no reason to believe that South Africa would be any different. Besides, most Swiss cantons are racially, ethnically, and culturally homogeneous. The German-Swiss and French-Swiss have much more in common than do the Zulu and Xhosa, who are traditional enemies. They certainly have much more in common than these two tribes have with the Afrikaner.
    Another flaw is the erroneous belief that a bill of rights is compatible with democracy. A bill of rights is as antidemocratic as a true monarchy. In a democracy the majority rules. The will of the majority must prevail if democracy is to live. The purpose of a bill of rights is to limit the political power of the rulers, which in a democracy is the majority. But if the power of the majority is limited, i.e., the majority cannot change the bill of rights at its whim, then some sort of minority rule exists. Where a minority rules, a democracy cannot exist.
    Another flaw is the absurd idea that the antidiscrimination provisions of the constitution would be used only against the central and cantonal governments, but not against private companies, associations, and individuals. One needs only to look at the Second Reconstruction of the South in the United States to see how ridiculous this concept is. During the Second Reconstruction of the South, antidiscrimination laws have been aimed as much at, or perhaps even more so, the private sector as they have been aimed at the State and local governments. There is no reason to believe that the Black rulers of South Africa would allow Whites even in a totally White canton to refuse to sell, rent, or provide services to a Black who enters or tries to enter that canton.
    She also proposes to allow communists and other terrorists to participate in formulating a new government for South Africa. Unless she desires despotic socialism, which she seems to abhor, allowing communists to participate is highly questionable. Although there may be one, I know of no instance in the third world where communists have been allowed to participate in formulating a government without the communists or at least despotic socialists eventually ruling.
    In her article, she offers no method to keep the central government from becoming more powerful by usurping the rights and powers of the cantonal governments and the people as the central government has done in the United States and, to a lesser degree perhaps, in Switzerland. Most likely, the usurpation would occur more quickly and more completely in South Africa for at least two reasons. First, there is no tradition of independent cantonal government. Second, her solution seems to require the central government to antedate or be created simultaneously with the cantonal governments; thus, the cantonal governments will appear to be creations of the central government.
    The only difference between her solution and the predictions of the prophets of doom is the method by which the Afrikaner will perish and the amount of time involved. If war comes as the prophets of doom predict, the Afrikaner may perish. But he will die like a man fighting for his race, culture, and homeland. (Oh, if only the rest of the West had this courage!) If her solution is implemented, the Afrikaner will surely perish. But he will die like a wimp as he is bred out of existence. (To die like wimps seems to be the insatiable desire of the West, not only for the Afrikaner, but for all that is European in race and culture.)
    There is, I believe, a better solution to the South Africa problem than the cantonal solution offered by Kendall, and that is, what I would term, the States’ rights’ solution, which, unlike her cantonal solution, requires true decentralization and dispersal of political power.
    First, the boundaries of the cantons should be drawn along tribal, ethnic, racial, cultural lines. This would ensure that the inhabitants of a given canton would have a common language, tradition, culture, heritage, etc. It would greatly reduce internal conflict within a canton.
    Next, instead of adopting a democratic form of government for the central and cantonal governments where rule is by the will of the majority, a republican form of government where rule is by law and where each important political faction and segment of society can be guaranteed some degree of representation should be adopted. The principle of “one man, one vote” should be abandoned. Representation should be proportioned primarily on the basis of the tax base and not on the basis of population. Voting should be weighted in accordance with the amount of taxes paid. The more taxes a person pays, the more votes he should have. This is the market concept of the more wealth a person has, the more “votes” he has in the market, applied to the political process.
    Perhaps the reason that Switzerland is among the freest of countries is that it was one of the last (maybe the last) in the non-Islamic world to grant suffrage to women. In the United States, the rapid acceleration in the growth of government and the decline of liberty began within a decade after women gained the “right” to vote. With few, if any, exceptions, as the franchise has expanded, the government has grown and liberty has declined. With political equality, democracy, has come economic equality, socialism. If liberty is one of Kendall’s objectives, democracy is not the panacea that she believes it to be. As John Randolph of Roanoke proclaimed “I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality.” In other words, one can have liberty; one can have equality; one can have neither; but one can never have both.
    Perhaps the most important principle that needs adopting is Calhoun’s doctrine of concurrent majority. Under this principle, each canton would have the right and power to veto acts of the central government, as far as that canton is concerned, that are, in the opinion of the canton, unconstitutional or unduly infringe upon the rights of the canton and its citizens. This principle could be applied at the cantonal level where important segments of society could have the power to veto acts of the canton as far as the acts apply to that segment. Likewise, each canton should possess the ultimate veto and have the right to secede without molestation or armed conflict.
    To protect the cantons from the central government and to preserve their rights and the rights of their citizens, the cantonal governments should have control of a significant part of the armed forces.
    The plan proposed by Kendall probably will not solve South Africa’s problems. It will surely not save the Afrikaner. The plan that I have briefly outlined above may not solve South Africa’s problems either. However, it does offer the Afrikaner a much better chance of surviving. (I am convinced that the West will accept no solution short of turning South Africa into a Soviet colony with a Black-led puppet government.)
    As an unreconstructed Southerner, my sympathy and empathy are with the Afrikaner. I believe that Western civilization may well live or die with him. Just as the South stood against the world and fought and died for all the nobleness of Western civilization 125 years ago, so today does the Afrikaner. I wish him victory.

Copyright © 1986 by Thomas C. Allen.

More political articles.

Some Thoughts About Terrorism

Some Thoughts About Terrorism

Thomas Allen

The war on terrorism is being used to enslave the American people. This is illustrated below with the discussions on terrorism, fighting terrorism, and the Transportation Security Administration.

Terrorism
Congress has shredded the Bill of Rights in the name of protecting Americans from terrorists. Yet, it allows the greatest terrorist organization in the United States, if not the world, to continue to operate with impunity. If Congress really wanted to protect Americans from terrorists, it would abolish the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which exists at the pleasure of Congress. Since Congress continues to allow the IRS to operate, obviously it is not concerned with protecting the American people from terrorism. The purpose of the antiterrorist programs and agencies that Congress and the President have created is to enslave the American people and not to protect them.

Fighting Terrorism
A favorite slogan of the Bush administration’s war on terrorism was that we need to kill the terrorists over there so that they cannot kill us over here. How are they going to kill us over here unless the US government lets them in? The terrorists have no navy or air force. Surely, the greatest navy and air force in the world can stop any rickety vessels or air crafts that the terrorists might commandeer. Therefore, terrorists were and are no real threat to the American people unless the US government invites them in. Inviting them, the Bush and especially the Obama administrations did with their open borders and unlimited immigration policies.

Transportation Security Administration
People should be suspicions of alt-right, conservative, and libertarian leaders who do not openly protest the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and urge people to boycott flying on commercial airliners until the TSA is abolished. Moreover, these conservative leaders should lead by example and refuse to fly on commercial airliners until Congress abolishes the TSA. Their failure to do so shows that they prefer slavery and convenience to liberty.
The TSA is a highly visible apparatus of America’s police state. Its primary job is not to protect passengers from terrorists, but to teach them to be obedient slaves to ridiculous and humiliating requirements — just as Mussolini required his lieutenants to perform ridiculous and humiliating activities. If such a young, visible, and irritating agency of the police state can be abolished, then recovery of America is hopeful. If not, America is doomed to despotic tyranny.
Moreover, the TSA violates at least five of the amendments of the Bill of Rights: the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth. An argument for ignoring the violations of these inalienable rights is that flying is voluntary. Thus, by the mere act of flying on an airplane, a person voluntarily exchanges his inalienable rights for slavery, which is a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. Voting is also voluntary. Following the reasoning for violating the rights of airline passengers, Congress could require everyone registered voter to sign away all his inalienable rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.
If the spokesmen for the alt-right, conservatives, libertarians, and other preachers of liberty want to strike a blow for liberty, they need to refuse to fly on commercial airliners until the TSA is abolished and is replaced with nothing. Moreover, they need to urge their followers to imitate their example and refuse to fly on commercial airliners until Congress abolishes the TSA. Likewise, their followers need to persuade their friends and relatives to boycott commercial airlines. If enough people refuse to fly until Congress abolishes the TSA and replaces it with nothing, the airlines will eventually force Congress to abolish the TSA.
If people refuse to give up the short-term convenience of flying, they deserve enslavement. Unfortunately, they will also drag people who value freedom over slavery further down into slavery.
Nevertheless, the TSA does offer a great opportunity for pedophiles. Where else can a pedophile get paid to grope children all day long?

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.