Police State: No to Protection, Yes to Suppression
At what point in history did these people come to the conclusion that failing to give aid and comfort to the enemy should be a criminal offense?
By Douglas V. Gibbs —— Bio and Archives--January 14, 2016
Guns-Crime-Terror-Security | Comments | Back To Full Article
The United States Supreme Court has ruled a number of times that law enforcement cannot protect you. They are there to take a report after a crime is committed. Reality suggests that the police are unable to protect you without compromising your freedom as an individual. To "anticipate" crime and arrest based on a condition of anticipation, before any crime is actually committed, would be to dwell in the realm of Orwellian government where thought crime reigns. Nonetheless, pre-crime suppression has been trying to rear its ugly head, through crime assessment technology, and hate-speech laws.
The reality is that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. While government seeks to disarm the public, they are also trying to change the minutes into seconds, by intruding into the details of our lives.Welcome to CFP’s Comment Section!
The Comment section of online publications is the new front in the ongoing Cancel Culture Battle.
Big Tech and Big Media are gunning for the Conservative Voice—through their Comment Sections.
Canada Free Press wishes to stay in the fight, and we want our fans, followers, commenters there with us.
We ask only that commenters keep it civil, keep it clean.
Thank You for your patience and for staying aboard the CFP ‘Mother Ship’.
READ OUR Commenting Policy