away our freedoms and storing them for safekeeping where the terrorists cannot reach them.

We have been told that the terrorists want to take away our freedoms.

First of all, how could this possibly be done? As a friend recently pointed out: "What do they expect them to do? Come over here wielding swords, forcing everybody to grow beards?" The whole idea of a outside entity taking away the freedoms of the American people is ludicrous.

We have been told that the terrorists hate our freedom of speech.

Would this be the same freedom of speech that had Richard Humphreys of Portland, Oregon sentenced to 37 months in prison for "threatening to kill or harm the President" after telling
a joke during a bar room discussion? Would this be the same freedom of speech that had Secret Service Agents question a High School student for wearing a controversial t-shirt, treated as a potential threat on the president? Would this be the same freedom of speech that has political essayist voxfux on the run after a combined task force from the Secret Service, FBI, CIA, and Major Crimes Unit raided his Long Island home? Would this be the same freedom of speech that cost TV host Bill Maher his job for simply pointing out the inverse reality of Bush's comments after the attacks?

I would say yes. There is no other "freedom of speech" in which I am familiar.

We have been told that they hate our freedom to assemble.

Would this be the same freedom to assemble that allows protesting at Bush speeches only while penned inside designated "Free-speech zones", while Bush supporters are free to join in the festivities? Would this be the same freedom to assemble that has had people
arrested simply for protesting his majesty, President Bush and his brother? Would this be the same freedom to assemble that demands protesters be videotaped, often by the military?

Again, I would say yes. I can only think of one definition for the "freedom to assemble".

We have been told that they hate our freedom to disagree with each other.

Would this be the same freedom to disagree with each other that had George Bush claim that the Democratic-controlled Senate doesn't care about national security because it opposes his narrow vision of a new Homeland Security Department, primarily created for domestic surveillance? Would this be the same freedom to disagree with each other that has Americans calling fellow citizens "anti-American", because they support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

I can think of no other way to define the "freedom to disagree".

I would just assume that these were the freedoms that he was referring to.

Yet all of these freedoms remained perfectly intact on September 12, 2001. What happened?

The answer is simple: Terrorism cannot take away your freedom. That's impossible. It is only George W. Bush and his government that can, and in doing so, he is making sure the terrorists have won.












-------------------------------------
Visit Wade's fine website at
http://www.libertythink.com. Wade can be reached at: valis@libertythink.com
-------------------------------------
Permission to reprint this article is granted providing the original author is cited and a link to
PRISON PLANET.com is included. The views expressed in this article may not necessarily be those of Alex Jones or Paul Joseph Watson.
-------------------------------------
E-MAIL THIS LINK
Enter recipient's e-mail:

G.W. Bush - Making sure the terrorists have won

By Wade Inganamort

"They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."

-- George W. Bush, Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People, September 20, 2001

In addition to the sheer idiocy of this statement, let's take some time to focus on the DoubleSpeak inherent to the Bush concept of "
Freedom at war with fear" and the Administration's policy of taking