Once again our justice system shows what a failure it is to render justice. Whether or not you personally believe that George Zimmerman is criminally responsible for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, it has become clear now that our government is a complete failure when it comes to bringing justice to the people in a Constitutional manner as prescribed by the Founding Fathers of this nation. We also see the wickedness of corporate news and mainstream social media when it comes to fabrication of lies and inflaming a genuine tragedy.
A charge of Murder in the Second Degree has been brought against George Zimmerman in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. The charge has been filed at the sole discretion of special prosecutor Angela Corey, rather than trough the findings of a grand-jury indictment. Such a maneuver is allowed under Florida law, but it certainly does not instill one with any faith in the objectivity of the prosecutor despite her claim that they "...do not prosecute by public pressure or by petition."
Quite obviously she is, well, mistaken we'll call it. If it were not for public pressure or petition, she would not have even been assigned to this case to begin with. The police investigation failed to uncover enough evidence to support even a charge of manslaughter, much less the much more serious charge of murder. The police had originally recommended to the local prosecutor that the neighborhood-watch captain be charged with manslaughter, despite the fact that the physical evidence and witness statements corroborated his claim of self-defense. So what new evidence has this special prosecutor uncovered that the police and local district attorney did not? Obviously she is not saying now, but instead stated, "That's why we try cases in court." Frankly, that much I do agree with too. It's a travesty that this case has been tried in the media already from the start. Given the amount of lies spun about this case and pressure to lynch the shooter at this point, it is hard to imagine that there is even much hope for a fair trial at all at this point. Which of course goes right back to why this matter is being handled by a special prosecutor in the first place.
She claims that she has enough evidence to not only prove that Zimmerman should have known better than to shoot Martin, but that he was in fact cognizant that doing so would be a crime. That he did not just act in a negligent manner which caused the teen's death, but that he willfully and intentionally killed the boy knowing unambiguously that what he was doing was wrong. That he flat out lied about defending himself and killed the teen in cold blood, on a whim, without any planning or forethought. If such evidence is to be believed, then we must also accept that the local police and prosecutor are woefully inept at their jobs at the very least, or that they intentionally dismissed the facts of the case in a corrupt, even criminal manner. Can we expect this special prosecutor to follow up this investigation to hold these public officials accountable? Maybe I'm just a cynic, but I doubt it.
So that is where we wind up at this point. Either the local officials are incompetent to a point bordering on criminality, or this prosecution is indeed the product of a witch-hunt rooted in political pressure, media lies, public-mob frenzy, and racism.
As a footnote here, I would also like to point out how the media is still intentionally slanting this story in a manner so as to portray Zimmerman as the villain. An article by the Associated Press reads in part...
"A video taken about 40 minutes after the shooting as Zimmerman arrived at the Sanford police station showed him walking unassisted without difficulty. There were no plainly visible bandages or blood on his clothing, but Zimmerman may have had a small wound on the back of his head."
Okay, so he was walking unassisted. What difference does that make? He never claimed to have broken legs. Without difficulty? How is the media able to determine what Zimmerman's level of pain or pain management might have been, from a few seconds of police station surveillance video? No plainly visible blood or bandages on his clothing, okay, that doesn't prove anything either. Just because the camera didn't capture it, doesn't mean it wasn't there, or that he wasn't attacked. Is one obligated to be bleeding profusely with broken bones before they may invoke their right to defend themselves against a violent attacker? Not in my book, and certainly not under Florida law. But finally, when this article tells us that Zimmerman "may" have had an injury to the back of his head, we can plainly see the disingenuous nature of the article. The original, unaltered video CLEARLY shows an injury to the back of his head consistent with his claim that his head was being beaten into the sidewalk. This AP article also leaves out, conveniently enough, the fact that Zimmerman also had a broken nose, and that all of his injuries were documented by both police and doctors, and that those injuries were consistent with his statement.
By pointing out the obvious media slant here, it is not my intention at all to lead you, the reader, to conclude that Zimmerman is in fact innocent of any crime. He might very well be guilty of killing that boy in a criminal manner. Indeed I do have my own suspicions, but they are not based on spin. My intent here though is to show how you are being lied to by the corporate press, and that so far, there is no real evidence which has come to light that would substantiate any criminal charges against the shooter. It sets a very dangerous precedent to give propaganda and rhetoric a priority over facts and the presumption of innocence through due-process. The tragedy of that boy's death will never be mitigated through an erroneous placement of blame or an emotional appeal to vengeance.
For more on how the media has butchered this tragedy, check out this article:
This piece was originally presented at Hudson Valley Forums and is used by permission of the author.
I happen to be the sort who is always up for a good debate on just about any subject. I consider myself to be a pretty logical person and adept at cutting through the proverbial BS, especially when it comes to the garbage the mainstream media cranks out. So it's no surprise to those that know me, that I might jump into a conversation or two regarding the case and media story of the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida.
What I find most shocking though, downright alarming even, is that I have now lost SIX friends over this story. For my simply daring to question the media version, and suggesting that perhaps, just perhaps, the EVIDENCE in the case should be considered before jumping on the lynch-mob bandwagon for vigilante justice against the shooter.
The perverse hold that the propaganda machine has over America is apparent, more and more each day as we see stories like this sow division between friends. Now keep in mind here, that I have nothing to gain personally from discussing the case, and to my knowledge none of my friends have any direct relation to the case either. So basically, I have lost 6 friends simply because they were deluded by a media frenzy.
In a more logical world, friends are able to debate any issue, even with great zeal and passion, but still remain friends no matter what the outcome of the debate. After all, how boring would friendships be if we were all drones who knew all of the same things, and agreed on everything. Examining different points of view is how each of us learns new things, to broaden our horizons, but to tell a friend that you will or will not be friends with them based upon their opinion of a shooting that happened on the other side of the country is absolutely ridiculous.
No, it's worse than that. It is symptomatic of the death grip that the media and the-powers-that-be have over the thought processes of society at large, and how easily manipulated the people truly are in order to sell out their friendships for media propaganda and falsehoods. If they will sell out their friends to be "politically correct" they will have no problem selling out our rights either. And that, I believe, is what really rests at the center of this case, just like the Casey/Caylee Anthony case, just like the debate surrounding drug testing of welfare recipients. These issues are in the news and spread across social media in order to soften up society, and leave the masses DEMANDING that the government take away our rights.
So what really is my opinion about this case anyway? Perhaps you are reading this, wondering if my friends might have been justified to turn their back on me. Maybe I am ignorant, or a bigot, unfit to share their company or a spot on their Facebook wall. Well, I'll go ahead and add this supplemental here to articulate what my thoughts on the matter really are.
TRAYVON MARTIN SHOOTING STORY, SORTING FACT FROM FICTION
One of the first thoughts that crossed my mind when I first heard of the Trayvon Martin shooting, was to question why this particular case was suddenly garnering national attention. Skimming the backwaters of niche-blogs and alternative news sources I see horrendous injustices committed each and every day, but society is generally content to rabble along blissfully unaware of how bad things have really gotten in this country. Whether it be issues of poverty, violence, corruption, the systematic dismantling of the last vestiges of our precious Constitution, society at large is too busy watching American Idol to be bothered. So why now, why this case, and not cases like the BART shooting where the officer got off with a slap on the wrist?
...or the untold number of cases that are routinely swept under the rug every single day in this country? There is an agenda being carried out here, that has little to do with the death of a young black man on a street in Florida. Whatever the agenda actually is, we may not see yet for some time, or until after it is too late judging by how easily manipulated people have been by this story.
So let's look at the case itself now. A sanctioned neighborhood watchman (George Zimmerman) reports what he believes to be a suspicious person (Treyvon Martin) to police. The watchman has been credited by the homeowner association with catching a thief on one occasion, in this same gated community where police get roughly 400 calls per year, a substantial portion of those reports coming from watchman Zimmerman. In the year before this incident, the neighborhood had seen eight burglaries, nine thefts and one other shooting.
This is the audio recording of the conversation between Zimmerman and police, which details his observations...
It is important to note here, that Martin had every right to be in the neighborhood visiting his father. He also had every right to walk slowly in the rain if he so chose to, and to peer at other houses in the neighborhood as he is said to have been doing, returning from the local store with a bag of Skittles and an Arizona iced-tea. Equally important to recognize though, is Zimmerman's right, and even his responsibility as neighborhood watch captain, to report anything out of the ordinary and to observe the activities of suspicious persons. At that point, Zimmerman had no way of knowing that Martin had a legitimate reason to be in the neighborhood, which is of course why he called police to investigate further.
Keep in mind here too, that suspicion has nothing to do with guilt. Which is why we don't allow lynch-mob justice in America in the first place. Anything out of the ordinary can be cause for further inquiry, but that does not necessarily mean that there is in fact any sort of criminal activity happening. Hundreds of thousands of times each day on the streets of America, police stop random people demanding I.D., demanding to know where the citizen is going or coming from, and so forth. This instance is hardly any different, except for the fact that in a private community such a stop would be even more justified legally. Whereas Americans enjoy the right to walk down any street they so choose to, that right does not extend to within the gates of private communities or other private property. On such property a person can be stopped and questioned at any time to verify that they have not trespassed, and have legitimate business within the secured area.
If police had arrived before the confrontation occurred, they would have verified that Martin was in the neighborhood as a legitimate resident, or by the invitation of a resident, and that would have been the end of the story. Sadly of course, that was not the end of the story though, this time. Zimmerman is "accused" of following Martin, thereby "provoking" the confrontation and being left with the blame. This "following" seems to be the major sticking point in discussions on the matter, so let's take the time to look very closely at it.
As watch captain Zimmerman had every right and indeed a duty to observe suspicious persons. He also has every right, as a citizen and resident of the private community, to move about freely on those streets as he so chooses. The same right that Martin had to walk in the rain wearing a hoodie and eating Skittles. There are some who contend that somehow Zimmerman no longer had the right to perform his duty, or to move about freely in his own neighborhood, simply because the police told him not to. The truth is though, that the police did not make any such order, and he would not have been obligated to obey such an unlawful order if they had.
Nonetheless, we can also discern from the Zimmerman cellphone call to police, that this "following" of Martin was not so clear cut as some, even the media, might lead us to believe. To begin with, we hear that it was actually Martin who first approached Zimmermann, making what could be construed as a threatening gesture, reaching into his waistband. (For the layman reading this, such a gesture is a sign that the person is armed and considering shooting someone.) He also did not appear afraid, as he chose to talk on his phone with his girlfriend, rather than call police to report that someone was following him, according to her statement.
When Martin took off running, Zimmerman did pursue him momentarily, until police told him, "We don't need you to do that," at which point he broke off his pursuit and told the dispatcher that he had lost sight of Martin. So even though police could not legally order him to stop, he did in fact obey the suggestion before the phone call comes to an end. What happened after that is questionable, but there is some evidence nonetheless.
In the Wikipedia article there are multiple audio recordings of 911 calls. On one of those recordings we can clearly hear a struggle, someone screaming for help, and a single gunshot at which point the hollering ceases. It is not immediately discernible who was actually screaming for help, though I expect that a forensic sound investigation might be able to rule out Zimmerman if it was not him, as he has claimed it is. We also have an eyewitness who supports that claim, and also states that Martin was on top of Zimmerman overpowering him and pummeling him.
Other witness statements have been made as well, but could be considered unreliable. One teen eyewitness who supported Zimmerman's account, his mother has since claimed that police coerced her son to give certain details. Other witnesses only heard the events. And still other witnesses made statements that are dis-proven by the audio recordings, but which are still broadcast in the media as truthful.
Quote:Witness Mary Cutcher and her roommate appeared on AC 360 and stated that she believes "there was no punching, no hitting going on at the time, no wrestling" just prior to the shooting...
Clearly, that is disproved by listening to the struggle ensue on the recordings, along with other witness statements. With the exception of the one eyewitness, the rest of the statements are a wash for the most part, and don't really tell us much about what actually happened. There is some physical evidence too though. The injuries that Zimmerman suffered, as documented by doctors, were consistent with his account and that of the only reliable witness.
So all in all, we see that there is some practical evidence here to support Zimmerman's contention that he is the one who was actually attacked, and that ultimately he shot Martin in self-defense for fear of his own life. The evidence certainly does not prove that of course, but it doesn't have to either. Let's not forget that it is not up to someone to prove their innocence, it is up to the police and "the people" to prove a person guilty of a crime. Presumption of innocence is the bedrock of liberty and our entire justice system. We see here, that while we have some evidence to support Zimmerman's account that he acted in self-defense, we have no reliable evidence at all to refute his claim or to support a criminal charge in relation to the homicide. No one is disputing who killed Martin, but there is no substantial evidence to show that he was killed in a criminal manner. Homicide does not always equal murder, or even manslaughter.
There are those in the media and among the rabble who cry foul when it comes to the investigation itself, claiming that there isn't enough evidence because it was not properly investigated, but there is really no evidence of that either. They claim that Zimmerman was never arrested and essentially that the death was not investigated. The facts do not support those claims though. Zimmerman was in fact arrested on the night of the shooting, and interrogated. Without sufficient evidence to hold him or charge him, police were forced to release him. The police went to the state attorney seeking a warrant to re-arrest and charge Zimmerman, but the state attorney found insufficient evidence to support the recommended charge.
Did George Zimmerman kill Trayvon Martin in cold-blood or through criminal negligence? We may never know, but one thing we do know is that in a free country, where citizens enjoy rights and due-process, a person has to be proved guilty of a crime, no matter what the tide of public opinion and a vigilante mob may be. After all, anything less would actually justify Zimmerman himself acting as a vigilante as his detractors contend.
Which now brings us to the insanity of the Trayvon Martin supporters. Here they are seeking vigilante justice, looking to literally murder Zimmerman in many instances, for allegedly doing precisely what they clearly state they fully intend to do to him now. We also have the media, other organizations, and even celebrities fanning the flames of racism and literally putting the lives of innocent people at risk in a quest for misplaced vengeance. There are numerous examples of media bias, from the photos of Zimmerman and Martin, to this excerpt is taken from the Wikipedia article on the matter:
Quote:NBC was accused of selectively editing Zimmerman's 911 call to make it appear as if Zimmerman was racist. NBC played a recording of Zimmerman saying, "This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black." However, in the original 911 tape, Zimmerman said, "This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about." Then the 911 operator asked, "Okay. And this guy, is he white black or Hispanic?" Then Zimmerman answered, "He looks black." Sean Hannity said of this editing, "They forgot the dispatcher’s question! How could NBC, in good conscience, do that?" Brent Bozell said, "This isn’t bias, this isn’t distortion, this is an all-out falsehood by NBC News."
Quite obviously a deliberate attempt to smear Zimmerman as a racist.
Then we see things like this:
Trayvon Martin's family is said to hold the trademark to that design as well as several other designs and slogans of support for "justice" in the case. I wonder how well it would go over if someone trademarked a shirt that said "FA*GOT @SS N*GGER" with a picture of, I dunno, OJ Simpson maybe?
The race-baiting is sickening, and really I didn't even want to talk about it, but sadly it has become a serious element of this story now, despite the fact that Zimmerman is Latino. Somehow the white community as a whole is being blamed for the death of a young man who might very well have been killed for attacking another man, in a situation that had nothing to do with racism from the start, until the vigilante movement got behind this story. Any teenager in a hoodie, wandering around in the rain and acting oddly might be considered suspicious no matter what their race. In fact, Zimmermann wasn't even entirely sure that Martin was black when he first called police, as we heard in the recording.
Now we have the New Black Panther party putting out a bounty on Zimmerman's head for a million dollars. Frankly, I don't even understand how this statement isn't considered criminal in and of itself. What do they plan to do with him if they were to "capture" him? If the KKK came out on national news declaring a million-dollar reward for the capture of someone, they would be shut down as a terrorist organization bent on circumventing the government, sanctioning kidnapping, and inciting murder, or something along those lines, and rightly so. At the very least, even single person who donates money to the Panthers at this point should be considered to be facilitating a criminal terrorist enterprise. Check it out:
The spokesman there seems to conveniently forget that more than 90% of blacks murdered, are killed by other blacks. This is the sort of ignorance that seems to be fueling the outrage over this shooting. So if anyone really wants to go there about what race is more violent, there ya go. Now don't get me wrong, I don't really believe that race has anything to do with it, but I am not the one claiming that race has anything to do with what happened out there that night either.
Outside of blatant racism by Trayvon Martin supporters and the media inciting racial tensions, we also have the dangerous ignorance of would-be vigilante's such as black filmmaker Spike Lee to contend with. Lee Tweeted an address he believed to be Zimmerman's, but turned out to actually be that of an elderly couple with a son who has a similar name but is of no relation to the shooter. The couple were forced to flee their home after being inundated with threats, hate mail, and unwanted visits to their home. Lee subsequently apologized, signing off a new tweet with "justice in court" but clearly this was not what he had in mind when he first put that address out there to millions of fans. This sort of thing could have easily gotten innocent people hurt or killed given the volatility of the issue now.
So all in all, we can see that much of what the public believes about this case, is rooted in ignorance and lies. The end result? Another resounding success for the-powers-that-be to sow division and hatred among the people, so that we are powerless to stand against the real corruption in this country. Ignorance is perpetuated and public consciousness molded like the mind of a child, as we suffer a mass Stockholm Syndrome. We are now likely to see more oppressive knee-jerk reactionary legislation enacted with which to strip away our rights no matter what our skin tone is, as a result of the all of this, while society shuffles along blissfully unaware of how they have just been duped again and left wondering why this country is so screwed up.
Rights and privileges. The two words are not synonymous, yet it seems that most Americans today would be hard-pressed to explain the difference between the two. It's little wonder then that things are so bad in this country, when it's own people no longer understand the most basic and fundamental concepts which define us as a people in the first place. What is it that we shed blood to protect? What is it which protects us from having our blood shed on the swords of tyrants?
Rights.
So what exactly is a right? The legal dictionary at Law.com defines the word as follows:
1) n. an entitlement to something, whether to concepts like justice and due process or to ownership of property or some interest in property, real or personal.
Okay, so who entitles us to our rights then? The word "entitlement" gives us the impression that rights are handed down from some sovereign, or perhaps divine authority.
In medieval Europe, only the King could own property. In turn, he could then share that property with whom he chose. It was therefore this human being, who ultimately defined the rights of all those who resided in his lands. It's no wonder why, through the ages, Kings have been revered as gods upon the earth. The righteous and the tyrants alike held this power over the people in their realm.
All of that suddenly changed, when a group of men rebelled against the concept of one man ruling over other men. Industrious men of the New World rebelled against their sovereign King, and declared their independence from him and his government.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
~Declaration of Independnce
These men founded a new nation, where rights would be shared equally among all men. Rights entitled by no one man but rather by nature and the divine, defined by a Constitution, and empowered by the consent of the governed. They formed a new government, where all men would be their own king, owing their destiny to no man. Each man a sovereign, free to choose his own destiny.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
~Preamble, United States Constitution
So now we see that while rights may actually have variable definitions throughout the world and throughout history, the definition has been made more exact in the United States of America, by the Founding Fathers of hte nation. Here, rights are ordained by nature and God, not by the men who have documented what those rights are. It is not even the government formed by We the People, which entitles us to the rights defined by the Constitution.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” ~Patrick Henry
A right is not something that can be changed, or taken away. A right is that which defines our very being, as an American, as a human beings. So let us compare that now, to the definition of privilege. What exactly is a privilege, and how dies it differ from a right as we explored above? Black's Law Dictionary defines the word privilege as follows:
privilege - 1. A special legal right, exemption, or immunity granted to a person or class of persons; an exception to a duty
So we see that the word privilege first requires a legal right, rather than a natural or divine right which was defined as "unalienable" and "self-evident" by the Founding Fathers when they declared Americans sovereigns and penned the Constitution. A legal right is a construct of men and government, not by nature and not by God. It is neither self-evident nor unalienable.
unalienable - incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523
The Constitution secures your rights, it does not grant them or create them. It defines the framework in which law and government must confine itself within. The Constitution is not law itself, but the document which defines us as a people. It spells out the values which constitute America.
Statutes and laws on the other hand are privileges. They can be written, repealed, altered, transferred, applied selectively, irregularly, and arbitrarily based upon whatever criteria an authority self-validates. Rights cannot be affected in any such way. They are set in stone so to speak. Privileges can be extended to you or revoked from you, by authorities such as the government, police, your boss, your parents, your landlord, and so forth. Rights on the other hand, are a constant, that cannot be altered.
A privilege is created to give favor to a person or class of persons separate from all others. Of course, this then flies in the face of equality, to give some people certain privileges that other people do not enjoy. But it also means that such favor can be taken from you by that authority which granted it to you in the first place.
Let us take a police officer for example, since so often citizens tend to resent the privileges afforded them. A sworn police officer takes an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and to perform certain duties of justice in accordance with those values. In exchange, he is afforded special privileges that the average citizen does not enjoy.
Chief among them, an exemption against prosecution for detaining a citizen. You, as a citizen, may arrest another citizen for a crime, but you must be certain that you are not committing a crime yourself by doing so. If it turns out that the person you detained was not in fact guilty of the crime you alleged, you would have actually then committed a slew of crimes yourself by defaming them and infringing upon their liberty. You can be charged with any number of crimes and face civil liability for denying the persons freedom of movement, kidnapping, making false and defamatory accusations, false arrest, and so forth.
A police officer on the other hand, can detain someone for the purposes of investigation for anywhere from 24 to 72 hours depending on what state you live in. After such time, the police then have to charge a person with an actual crime, or release their detainee. But even if it turns out that the person did not in fact commit any crime, and/or if they are exonerated at trial, the police officer still cannot be charged with any crime or civil penalty so long as the charge was based upon what the officer saw as reasonable evidence. Prosecuting attorneys are also afforded similar privilege as officers of the court.
The police officer can have that privilege revoked at any time a superior or judge deems appropriate, even after an arrest had been made. So let us make another example there, to see how having privileges rather than rights, can become a serious liability. A police officer makes an arrest and files a charge on a citizen, for what the officers states is reasonable suspicion and evidence. If, however, his superior views the arrest to not be reasonable, and does not believe that the officer truly believed the arrest was reasonable, his privilege can be revoked retro-actively and the officer can then be prosecuted for making a false arrest, dereliction of duty, civil rights violations, and so forth. On the one hand, this protects citizens to some degree, from police officers who may be inclined to make false arrests for any number of political, personal, or otherwise criminal reasons. But on the other hand, we also see how the arbitrary nature of the privilege might be misused, to coerce or blackmail police officers into cooperating with agendas of cronyism and even criminal enterprise within the system.
At this point, you the reader should see clearly that there is indeed a difference between rights and privileges. They are nearly complete opposites. Given a preference, I for one would much prefer rights over privileges too. I like to know where I stand, and not leave my fate in the hands of someone else or some other group of people who may or may not be looking out for my best interests, and regardless of their own intentions which may or may not be well-meaning.
There are so many examples that could be made of the differences between rights and privileges. Yet time and time again, we see lawmakers today blurring the two concepts, to the detriment of liberty. Society, being too busy working for their slave-wage or otherwise preoccupied with the many distractions put out there to dumb-down the population, are content with this blurring of the distinct meanings. Indeed in this day and age it takes little to sway the masses to not only accept the erosion of liberty, but to demand it with potent support of knee-jerk reactionary legislation of all sorts. But now dear reader, you are informed. You know the answer to the question put forth here to today. What is the difference between rights and privileges?
"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite."
~Thomas Jefferson
For further insight, please enjoy any or all of the following material:
