Banner Advertiser

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

[ALOCHONA] Dr Kamal Hossain on SC verdict



Dr Kamal Hossain on SC verdict
 
 
 


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Appellate Division verdict exposes AL to difficulty



Appellate Division verdict exposes AL to difficulty

THE Appellate Division of the Supreme Court appears to have made it difficult for the ruling Awami League to use the court of law in implementing its political project as regards rewriting the constitution. Besides, it has indirectly entrusted the AL-led government with the moral responsibility of trying General HM Ershad of the Jatiya Party, a component of the coalition, for extra-constitutional takeover of power in 1982. The Appellate Division's observations on the High Court verdict on the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which said the military regime covered by the Fifth Amendment was entirely illegal, came to light on Tuesday. The Appellate Division modified certain parts of the High Court verdict and observed that all actions taken by the regime for 'welfare of the people' were to be exempted from being treated as illegal. Besides, the Supreme Court observed that the identity of the citizens of Bangladesh as Bangladeshis, needed to be retained, an idea much disliked by the ruling Awami League. 
   
The Awami League, which has been giving people an impression that the party is set to change or amend the constitution not as a political project of its own, rather as a legal responsibility to accommodate the court verdict on the fifth amendment case, has been exposed to a political crisis. Because, the Appellate Division verdict in question has on the one hand retained Bangladeshi nationalism – a project inserted into the constitution by the Awami League's political rival Bangladesh Nationalist Party – and has retrieved 'secularism' as a state principle on the other – a principle that the Awami League itself has practically shied away from. The prime minister and AL president said only the other day that her party was not going to delete 'Bismillah' from the constitution, nor was it going to ban any religion-based political party. The positions are completely inconsistent with secular-democratic values. 
   
The Appellate Division's observation that 'all the changes in government from August 15, 1975 right up to the national elections of 1991 were unconstitutional' may have delighted the incumbents; however, the next sentence of the observation must have generated some amount of political discomfiture among them. The court observed that 'the perpetrators of such illegalities should also be suitably punished… so that in future… no usurper would dare to defy the people, their constitution, their government...' The observation obligates them to try Ershad – the only 'illegal power usurper' alive. (Bangladesh does not have any provision for trying anyone posthumously.) But, the Awami League cannot afford to try Ershad at the moment; after all, his party is a major component of its coalition government.
   
There is, however, scope for the government to seek revision of the Appellate Division verdict, because there are some apparent inconsistencies in the verdict, such as the verdict presses for secularism as a state principle while keeping silent on 'Bishmillah' incorporated into the constitution by the Fifth Amendment. Still, the Awami League should realise that the matter of making, or amending, the constitution is primarily a political process and that has to be done on the basis of political strength and public support of the political quarter/s concerned. The idea of changing the constitution by using court observation could be considered by some quarters as a 'smart political move' that may technically exempt the incumbents from criticism by the political opponents, but such uncalled-for 'smartness' may also push the incumbents into trouble as well, as has happened in the case of the Awami League. The party should, therefore, be well-advised to proceed to amend constitution, if really willing, on its own strength – taking the responsibility entirely on its own shoulders
 


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Re: Appellate Division's verdict published




 

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court on Tuesday released its judgement declaring finally the fifth amendment to the constitution illegal but upholding some of its provisions including Bangladeshi citizenship and Supreme Judicial Council.
   The judgement also said Bengali nationalism, as it was in the constitution on adoption in 1972, would be restored.
   The judgement was released and posted on the Supreme Court's web site after the six Appellate Division judges, led by former chief justice Tafazzul Islam, had finalised it at a meeting Tuesday evening.
   The six-member full Appellate Division bench delivered the order on the February 2 judgement upholding with modifications the High Court verdict that had declared illegal the fifth amendment to the constitution brought about through martial law proclamations after the August 15, 1975 changeover.
   The judgement was released on Tuesday, two days before the first meeting scheduled for today of the special parliamentary committee to recommend amendment to the constitution in line of the judgement.
   The highest court concluded its 184-page judgement saying, 'Let us bid farewell to all kinds of extra-constitutional adventures forever.'
   It disapproved the martial law and suspension of the constitution or any part thereof in any form.
   'The perpetrators of such illegalities should also be suitably punished and condemned so that in future no adventurist, no usurper, would dare to defy the people, their constitution, their government, established by them with their consent,' the judgement said.
   'However', the court contended, 'it is the parliament which can make law in this regard.'
   The High Court, in its verdict, condoned the amendments to some of the articles of the constitution and all acts and things done and actions and proceedings taken during the period between August 15, 1975 and April 9, 1979, as past and closed transactions.
   The Appellate Division modified the condonations and finally condoned all executive acts, things and deeds done and actions taken during the period between August 15, 1975 and April 9, 1979 which are past and closed, the actions not derogatory to the rights of the citizens, all acts during that period which tend to advance or promote the welfare of the people, all routine works done during the above period which even the lawful government could have done, the amendment to Part VIA of the constitution and Article 6, 44, 96 and 102 of the constitution, and all acts and legislative measures which are in accordance with, or could have been made under the constitution as it was on adoption in 1972.
   The High Court had ordered revival of Article 6 of the constitution framed in 1972 that said, 'Citizenship of Bangladesh shall be determined and regulated by law; citizens of Bangladesh shall be known as Bangalees.'
   The Appellate Division, however, ordered retention of the existing Article 6, as amended by the fifth amendment, which said, '6(1) The citizenship of Bangladesh shall be determined and regulated by law. (2) The citizens of Bangladesh shall be known as Bangladeshis.'
   The Appellate Division judgement said, 'Regarding nationalism though we expressed the view that being political issue, parliament is to take decision in this regard, but if in place of "Bangladeshi" the word 'Bangalee' is substituted in terms of the judgement and order of the High Court Division, then all passports, identity cards, nationality certificates issued by the government and other prescribed authorities, certificates issued by educational institutions, visa forms and other related documents of the government will have to be changed, reprinted or reissued. Moreover, the Bangladeshi nationals who will return to Bangladesh as well as those travelling abroad will also face serious complications with the immigration authorities abroad. Apart from the above and other hackles and harassments, this change of the nationality would also cost millions from the public exchequer. So for wider public interest the substituted Article 6 is to be retained.'
   The Appellate Division, however, did not condone the amendment to original Article 9, meaning that the original Article 9 would be restored in accordance with the High Court verdict.
   The original Article 9 reads, 'The unity and solidarity of the Bangalee nation, which, deriving its identity from its language and culture, attained sovereign and independent Bangladesh through a united and determined struggle in the war of independence, shall be the basis of Banglaee nationalism.'
   Neither the High Court nor the Appellate Division condoned the amendment to Article 8(1), meaning the restoration of the original Article 8(1) that said, 'The principles of nationalism, socialism, democracy and secularism, together with the principles derived from them as set out in this Part, shall constitute the fundamental principles of state policy.'
   The amendment Article says, '(1) The principles of absolute trust and faith in the almighty Allah, nationalism, democracy and socialism meaning economic and social justice, together with the principles derived from them as set out in this Part, shall constitute the fundamental principles of state policy. (1A) Absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah shall be the basis of all actions.'
   Regarding secularism, the Appellate Division said, '... it is very clear that the Proclamations, by omitting secularism, one of the state policy from the constitution, destroyed one of the basis of our struggle for freedom and also changed the basic character of the republic as enshrined in the Preamble as well as in Article 8(1) of the constitution.'
   It further observed, 'From the contents of the proceeding of the constitutional assembly it appears that for days elaborate discussion was made in respect of secularism, nationalism and socialism and then those were incorporated at Chapter II of our constitution which contained the fundamental principles of state policy.'
   The court ordered restoration of original Article 12, omitted by the fifth amendment.
   Original Article 12 said, 'The principle of secularism shall be realized by the examination of — (a) communalism in all its forms; (b) the granting by the state of political status in favour of any religion; (c) the abuse of religion for political purposes; any discrimination against, or persecution of, persons practicing a particular religion.'
   The High Court, however, had observed, 'The words, commas and brackets "Bismillah-Ar-Rahman-Ar-Rahim (In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful)" were inserted before the word "Preamble".'
   The Appellate Division only mentioned the High Court's observation, but made no comment, meaning that 'Bismillah-Ar-Rahman-Ar-Rahim' would be retained.
   Besides, Article 2A inserted by the eighth amendment recognises Islam as the state religion.
   According to the judgement, all religion-based political parties have to be banned.
   The court ordered restoration of the original proviso of Article 38, omitted by the fifth amendment.
   The proviso says, 'Provided that no person shall have the right to form, or be a member or otherwise taken part in the activities of, any communal or other association or union which in the name or on the basis of any religion has for its object, or pursues, a political purpose.'
   Regarding secularism and socialism, the Appellate Division observed, '... omission of secularism and substitution of Articles 6 and 10 by the authorities not competent to promulgate / make those and by those Orders Constitution was also changed in the manner not prescribed by the Constitution and accordingly those Orders are illegal, void and non est, Preamble and the relevant provisions of the Constitution in respect of secularism, nationalism and socialism, as existed on August 15, 1975, will revive.'
   The court ordered restoration of original Article 10 that said, 'A socialist economic system shall be established with a view to ensuring the attainment of a just and egalitarian society, free from the exploitation of man by man.
   The fifth amendment substituted a new Article 10 for the original one. The amended article says, 'Steps shall be taken to ensure participation of women in al spheres of national life.'
   The Appellate Division ordered restoration of original Article 95 that said, 'The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President, and the other Judges shall be appointed by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice.'
   The High Court had ordered retention of Article 95 as amended by Second Proclamation Order IV of 1976 making similar provisions, which as amended by the fourth amendment giving the sole authority to the president for appointment of all judges. The article was, however, amended by the fifth amendment making similar provision made by the fourth amendment.
   Regarding the independence of the judiciary, the Appellate Division also ordered retention of Article 44, 96 and 102.
   It observed, '... Partial restoration of the independence of judiciary (Article 95 and 116) as made by the Second Proclamation (Seventh Amendment) Order 1976. Independence of judiciary was curtailed by the Fourth Amendment. Restoration of the jurisdiction of the High Court Division to enforce fundamental rights as was provided in original Article 44 and 102 of the Constitution. The same was made by the Second Proclamation (Seventh Amendment) Order 1976. Insertion of the provision of Supreme Judicial Council in respect of security of tenure of the judges of the Supreme Court (Article 96).'
   According to the judgement, no referendum will require for bringing about amendment to any provision of the constitution, as it ordered restoration of the original Article 142 dropping the provisions inserted into the article by the fifth amendment for a referendum for amendment to some of the constitutional provisions.
   The Appellate Division, in the judgment, dismissed the two petitions, filed by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party secretary general Khandaker Delwar Hossain and three Supreme Court lawyers, seeking permission to appeal against the High Court verdict.
   The High Court bench of Justice ABM Khairul Huq and Justice ATM Fazley Kabir on August 29, 2005 delivered the verdict declaring illegal and void the fifth amendment and the martial law regulations issued between August 15, 1975 and April 1979.
   The High Court had delivered the verdict after hearing a writ petition filed by the Bangladesh Italian Marble Works Limited managing director, Maqsudul Alam, over a dispute over the Moon Cinema Hall at Wise Ghat in Old Town of Dhaka.
   The Bangladesh Nationalist Party's secretary general Khandaker Delwar Hossain and three Supreme Court lawyers — Munshi Ahsan Kabir, Tajul Islam and Kamruzzaman Bhuiyan — filed two provisional petitions on May 3, 2009 as the present government quit the legal battle against the High Court verdict, accepting it.
   The Appellate Division on May 4, 2009 allowed Delwar and the three lawyers to file regular petitions seeking permission to appeal against the High Court verdict.

 
 
 
 
On 7/27/10, Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com> wrote:
FIFTH AMENDMENT
Appellate Division's verdict published
 
Dhaka, July 27 (bdnews24.com) -- The highest appeals court's verdict on two petitions, seeking to challenge the repeal of the Fifth Amendment to the constitution, has been published.

The six-member full bench of the Appellate Division, headed by former chief justice Mohammed Tafazzul Islam, published the verdict on Tuesday evening after a long meeting.

On Feb 2, the bench dismissed the petitions after six days of hearings that began on Jan 19.

It said in the rejection, "Petitions are dismissed with modification and observation."

Law minister Shafique Ahmed told reporters after that ruling that the order laid the foundation for reviving the spirit of the independence war which was at the core of the country's constitution.

Regarding the amendment to the constitution, he had said they would take measures after receiving the copy of the order.

The Fifth Amendment was meant to provide constitutional legitimacy to the governments in power — military or otherwise — following the 1975 assassination of the founding president Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.

But the High Court gave a ruling in August 2005, declaring the Fifth Amendment illegal, in response to a petition challenging the legality of the Martial Law Regulation of 1977.

In its ruling, the High Court declared illegal three regimes between August 15, 1975 and February 1979, headed by Khandaker Mushtaque Ahmed, Abu Sa'dat Mohammad Sayem and Ziaur Rahman.

The ruling exempted certain measures of those regimes initiated for public welfare. But the court in its judgment said all the changes in government from August 15, 1975 right up to the national elections of 1991 were unconstitutional.

The present Awami League-led government's withdrawal from a petition made by the previous BNP-led regime, against the High Court ruling, prompted the two petitions by BNP secretary general Khandaker Delwar Hossain and three pro-Jamaat-e-Islami lawyers last month.

The court said that by rejecting the two leave petitions, "We are completely disapproving military rule and stay of constitution. Those involved in these illegal acts should be trialled and criticised so that in the future, no over-eager or illegal power usurper can show the impudence to remove the people's constitution and the government they have elected.

It also said in the verdict, "Even though the parliament can implement a law for this, we are saying goodbye forever to all actions outside the constitution."



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Usedful read for travellers - Avoiding a Large Phone Bill When Traveling



July 27, 2010

Avoiding a Large Phone Bill When Traveling

By DAVID A. KELLY

New York Times

 

UBIQUITOUS connectivity has its downside, especially when it comes to the price of using your cellphone abroad. The proliferation of smartphones and the increased use of data have made it easier than ever to rack up huge communications bills while traveling overseas, even on a short trip.

 

"Many leisure travelers with iPhones are going to Europe, not turning off their data and allowing their apps to continue downloading data," said Ken Grunski, chief executive of Telestial, a company that provides wireless services for travelers. "U.S. travelers were already getting hammered with expensive voice calls that start at $1 per minute. I know of people that have returned home to $1,000 or more roaming bills."

 

Luckily for tech-savvy travelers who want to stay in touch, there are ways to avoid spending a small fortune. Here are some options.

 

Getting the Right Phone

Many countries outside the United States rely on a wireless network technology called GSM. But two major American carriers — Verizon and Sprint — use different technologies in most of their standard phones. Owners of those devices will need a special cellphone when traveling to many countries.

 

Verizon users have a fairly convenient way to deal with this problem. If you've been a subscriber for six months or longer, Verizon will lend you a global phone free of charge for trips of 21 days or less; the customer pays only the two-day FedEx fee of $9.99.

 

Once you receive the phone, call Verizon to activate it and select an international rate plan (with the $4.99 a month plan, a call from, say, France, will cost 99 cents a minute compared with $1.29 without the plan; texts, which cost 50 cents per message sent and 5 cents per message received, are not included). After the trip, just ship the phone back.

 

AT&T and T-Mobile have GSM networks, so many of their standard phones will work overseas, although you'll still need to sign up for an international roaming plan to keep rates down. For example, with the $5.99 a month AT&T plan, calls from many Western European countries to the United States are only 99 cents. A package of 50 roaming texts costs $10.

 

Another option is to buy an inexpensive travel phone from a company like Telestial (telestial.com) or Planet Omni (planetomni.com). They typically cost less than $50. For example, Planet Omni's Kit V520 ($49) offers a dual-band GSM phone, SIM card with both a United States phone number and a global phone number, and $5 in airtime. The service allows you to receive free incoming calls in France, Italy, Spain and Britain on the global number, and free voice mail in 60 countries. Costs for outgoing calls depend on the country. For example, an outgoing call from France to a United States landline is 99 cents per minute, while a call to a mobile phone is $1.49 per minute. Telestial's Passport package (starting at $99) provides free incoming calls in Europe, as well as calls back to the United States for 49 cents per minute.

 

Data Deals

With everything from Internet radio to online maps to multitudes of apps, iPhones and smartphones can consume huge amounts of data. It might not be a big deal at home, but using all those apps on the road can add up quickly. If you plan on using a lot of data services while traveling, make sure you check with the carrier to see if it offers international data roaming plans.

 

For example, AT&T offers data roaming plans for the iPhone and smartphones that provide 20 megabytes of data usage within 90 countries for $24.99 per month, and up to 200 megabytes for $199.99 per month.

 

These charges are in addition to whatever your usual monthly charge is in the United States, but the cost pays off if you use a lot of data, especially when you consider that the standard international roaming rates for many Western European countries are about $20 per megabyte (according to Mr. Grunski, of Telestial, some Web pages are half a megabyte, so downloading, say, five pages in a single day could cost you $50 without a plan).

 

In addition, AT&T recommends that iPhone users go to their settings and turn off data roaming and options to fetch new data. They should also reset their usage tracker to zero so they can keep an eye on new charges, and make sure to use Wi-Fi instead of their phones' 3G services to check e-mail messages or use the Web.

 

SIM Cards

Frequent travelers may want to consider another money-saving technique: replacing a phone's American SIM card (the little electronic memory card that identifies and configures your phone) with a local (or country-specific) SIM card. In general, when you do that, all incoming calls will be free and outgoing calls (local or international) can be significantly cheaper.

 

Be aware that replacing the SIM card means that your phone has a different number, so you may want to let your contacts know, or set your phone to forward all calls to the new number before you go. Your phone also has to be unlocked so it can work with other carriers' networks — your cellphone company can provide information on how to do this — and it needs to be compatible with the wireless services in the country you're visiting.

 

"Even with an international roaming package on AT&T, it can cost 99 cents a minute or more for voice calls," said Philip Guarino, an international business consultant and founder of Elementi Consulting in Boston. "The moral of the story is, dump your American SIM card and buy a local one instead."

 

When Mr. Guarino travels he simply buys a SIM card at his destination airport and uses it for cheap local calls.

 

"In a pinch, even if I call directly from my phone using a foreign SIM card, the average direct-dial rates are about 60 cents U.S. per minute, which is cheaper than using my original U.S. SIM," he said.

 

The VoIP Option

 

Internet-based voice services (VoIP) such as Skype (skype.com) or Truphone (truphone.com), which charge as little as 2 cents for calls to regular phones, are among the cheapest ways for international travelers to communicate. This spring, Skype announced support for the iPhone, allowing iPhone users to make or receive Skype calls over either Wi-Fi or 3G connections.

 

One good option for travelers wanting to use Skype or Wi-Fi while traveling is Boingo Wireless. For $7.95 per month, travelers can sign up with Boingo (boingo.com) for unlimited Wi-Fi access in hotels, restaurants, cafes, airports and more in over 70 countries. Coupled with Skype or a similar VoIP product on an iPhone, smartphone or computer, it's hard to beat the value.

 

Last, but Not Least

 

Don't forget the old-fashioned calling card. When Mr. Guarino travels, he often uses discounted international calling cards from local cafes or newsstands.

 

"The rates to the U.S. are about 3 cents per minute, plus the cost of the local call," he said. "It's a good option for making a call from a land line, especially if you have a conference call to make where you don't want to worry about call quality."

 

__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Collecting Rainwater Now Illegal In Many States In USA



Collecting Rainwater Now Illegal In Many States In USA

By Mike Adams
 

Many of the freedoms we enjoy here in the U.S. are quickly eroding as the nation transforms from the land of the free

into the land of the enslaved, but what I'm about to share with you takes the assault on our freedoms to a whole new level. You may not be aware of this, but many Western states, including Utah, Washington and Colorado, have long outlawed individuals from collecting rainwater on their own properties because, according to officials, that rain belongs to someone else.

As bizarre as it sounds, laws restricting property owners from "diverting" water that falls on their own homes and land have been on the books for quite some time in many Western states. Only recently, as droughts and renewed interest in water conservation methods have become more common, have individuals and business owners started butting heads with law enforcement over the practice of collecting rainwater for personal use. 

Check out this YouTube video of a news report out of Salt Lake City, Utah, about the issue. It's illegal in Utah to divert rainwater without a valid water right, and Mark Miller of Mark Miller Toyota, found this out the hard way.

After constructing a large rainwater collection system at his new dealership to use for washing new cars, Miller found out that the project was actually an "unlawful diversion of rainwater." Even though it makes logical conservation sense to collect rainwater for this type of use since rain is scarce in Utah, it's still considered a violation of water rights which apparently belong exclusively to Utah's various government bodies.

"Utah's the second driest state in the nation. Our laws probably ought to catch up with that," explained Miller in response to the state's ridiculous rainwater collection ban.

Salt Lake City officials worked out a compromise with Miller and are now permitting him to use "their" rainwater, but the fact that individuals like Miller don't actually own the rainwater that falls on their property is a true indicator of what little freedom we actually have here in the U.S. (Access to the rainwater that falls on your own property seems to be a basic right, wouldn't you agree?)

Outlawing rainwater collection in other states

Utah isn't the only state with rainwater collection bans, either. Colorado and Washington also have rainwater collection restrictions that limit the free use of rainwater, but these restrictions vary among different areas of the states and legislators have passed some laws to help ease the restrictions.

In Colorado, two new laws were recently passed that exempt certain small-scale rainwater collection systems, like the kind people might install on their homes, from collection restrictions.

Prior to the passage of these laws, Douglas County, Colorado, conducted a study on how rainwater collection affects aquifer and groundwater supplies. The study revealed that letting people collect rainwater on their properties actually reduces demand from water facilities and improves conservation.

Personally, I don't think a study was even necessary to come to this obvious conclusion. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that using rainwater instead of tap water is a smart and useful way to conserve this valuable resource, especially in areas like the West where drought is a major concern.

Additionally, the study revealed that only about three percent of Douglas County's precipitation ended up in the streams and rivers that are supposedly being robbed from by rainwater collectors. The other 97 percent either evaporated or seeped into the ground to be used by plants.

This hints at why bureaucrats can't really use the argument that collecting rainwater prevents that water from getting to where it was intended to go. So little of it actually makes it to the final destination that virtually every household could collect many rain barrels worth of rainwater and it would have practically no effect on the amount that ends up in streams and rivers.

It's all about control, really

As long as people remain unaware and uninformed about important issues, the government will continue to chip away at the freedoms we enjoy. The only reason these water restrictions are finally starting to change for the better is because people started to notice and they worked to do something to reverse the law.

Even though these laws restricting water collection have been on the books for more than 100 years in some cases, they're slowly being reversed thanks to efforts by citizens who have decided that enough is enough.

Because if we can't even freely collect the rain that falls all around us, then what, exactly, can we freely do? The rainwater issue highlights a serious overall problem in America today: diminishing freedom and increased government control.

Today, we've basically been reprogrammed to think that we need permission from the government to exercise our inalienable rights, when in fact the government is supposed to derive its power from us. The American Republic was designed so that government would serve the People to protect and uphold freedom and liberty. But increasingly, our own government is restricting people from their rights to engage in commonsense, fundamental actions such as collecting rainwater or buying raw milk from the farmer next door.

Today, we are living under a government that has slowly siphoned off our freedoms, only to occasionally grant us back a few limited ones under the pretense that they're doing us a benevolent favor.

Fight back against enslavement

As long as people believe their rights stem from the government (and not the other way around), they will always be enslaved. And whatever rights and freedoms we think we still have will be quickly eroded by a system of bureaucratic power that seeks only to expand its control.

Because the same argument that's now being used to restrict rainwater collection could, of course, be used to declare that you have no right to the air you breathe, either. After all, governments could declare that air to be somebody else's air, and then they could charge you an "air tax" or an "air royalty" and demand you pay money for every breath that keeps you alive.

Think it couldn't happen? Just give it time. The government already claims it owns your land and house, effectively. If you really think you own your home, just stop paying property taxes and see how long you still "own" it. Your county or city will seize it and then sell it to pay off your "tax debt." That proves who really owns it in the first place... and it's not you!

How about the question of who owns your body? According to the U.S. Patent & Trademark office, U.S. corporations and universities already own 20% of your genetic code. Your own body, they claim, is partially the property of someone else.

So if they own your land, your water and your body, how long before they claim to own your air, your mind and even your soul?

Unless we stand up against this tyranny, it will creep upon us, day after day, until we find ourselves totally enslaved by a world of corporate-government collusion where everything of value is owned by powerful corporations -- all enforced at gunpoint by local law enforcement.

http://countercurrents.org/adams280710.htm



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___