The government lied to us...and they should have

reply to post by jackinthebox


Well, since you didn’t bother to look at the Purdue study. It was a model done to see how buildings in general would react to planes flying into them. It end up showing how the construction of buildings plays apart in…how well they hold up in fires and earthquakes…who would have thought that? Did a guy here or woman there have an agenda one way or the other? Probably, because they are human… but, I don’t know…only THEY could tell you or me what THEIR personal beliefs were.
I don’t know how many times I have said (written) this, but I never once said ALL CT’s are bogus. I would hope you would even agree some or many are.
This isn’t “snarky” this is a question, at least to start off. You don’t see how there could be a problem with guns on an airplane? I know a man may not have any intention on using a gun on the plane. But let’s say he has a few of the $6 alcoholic drinks and gets tipsy or flat out plastered cuz he had a pretty good buzz going by the time he gets on the plane. Something happens and the gun goes off by mistake.
Now I am one of the biggest 2nd Amendment supporters you will find…but I do think it is wise not to carry a gun on a plane. Again, I don’t know where that came from, but since you brought it up, yes, I am in favor of no guns on planes…call me crazy.
You know how to kill a man with a newspaper? Yeah, Matt Damon showed me that one too.

reply to post by jackinthebox


Here are your words again...

"I never said anything about total control"

And here are your words too

"... the Constitution has been suspended since 1933 by Executive Order of FDR and approved by Congress. It has never been reinstated. Now we have the Patriot Act which is the outline for a new American government. A dictatorship. Led by a President who is no longer burdened by a system of checks and balances."

Makes sense of how they are both true, please.

reply to post by jackinthebox


en.wikipedia.org...


"Starting with Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, presidents had claimed the power to declare emergencies without limiting their scope or duration, without citing the relevant statutes, and without reporting to Congress. The Supreme Court in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer limited what a president could do in such an emergency, but did not limit the emergency declaration power itself. A 1973 Senate investigation found (in Senate Report 93-549) that four declared emergencies remained in effect: the 1933 emergency with respect to gold, a 1950 emergency with respect to the Korean War, a 1970 emergency regarding a postal workers strike, and a 1971 emergency in response to inflation. Congress terminated these emergencies with the National Emergencies Act, and then passed the IEEPA to restore the emergency power in a limited, OVERSEEABLE form."
Overseeable? Is that how dictatorships work?

reply to post by _Johnny_Utah_

Well, since you didn’t bother to look at the Purdue study. It was a model done to see how buildings in general would react to planes flying into them.

So?

I would hope you would even agree some or many are.

Yes, I would accept the possibility that many CT's are wrong.

You don’t see how there could be a problem with guns on an airplane? I know a man may not have any intention on using a gun on the plane. But let’s say he has a few of the $6 alcoholic drinks and gets tipsy or flat out plastered cuz he had a pretty good buzz going by the time he gets on the plane. Something happens and the gun goes off by mistake.

So, why are you assuming that a Texan with a gun is going to get drunk on a plane? Maybe the rule should be that they can't serve alcohol on a plane. After all, even a drunk person without a gun could cause a ruckus that might cause the plane to crash. How about a drunk person who decides to open the emrgency hatch at 40,000 feet?

You know how to kill a man with a newspaper? Yeah, Matt Damon showed me that one too.

You must have thought this was a joke. Obviously, you are mistaken.

reply to post by _Johnny_Utah_


Now you have resorted to the most classic disinformation tactic, which is quoting out of context. You are beginning to bore me.

THIS...

"I never said anything about total control"

was said in context to THAT...

the Constitution has been suspended since 1933 by Executive Order of FDR and approved by Congress.

The suspension of the Constitution did not equate to total control by the Presidency.

reply to post by _Johnny_Utah_


Oversight is irrelevant. Obviously I can see the NWO coming, but can't do much about it. On the other hand, we have people like you who don't even bother to look. You should be in Congress.

EDIT to add: You should try other sources besides Wikipedia. You do realize that Wikipedia is like the tabloids of encylopedias right? It's not quite accurate. Congress had no authority to "terminate" any emergency. Only a President can do that, and none ever has.

Is that how dictatorships work?

Once again, your convoluted interpretation of what I have said leaves you unable to argue with any semblance of validity. The suspension of the Constitution happened many years before the Patriot Act was passed.




[edit on 2/15/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by jackinthebox


Jack, I think you and I see things much more closely than you think. It is clear there parts of issues or statutes we don’t see eye to eye on…very much so at that. Here is a problem I see, not just with you and me, but in many people now. They agree on things, but the way they should be implemented is where the problems start. It is a “line in the sand” that really isn’t there. We find ways hunker down and refuse to budge. We think every issue, every debate, is a must win. I am not saying compromise is a good thing, indeed , it is treachery to yourself. However, we get lost in the battle amongst us, and forget the larger war, the original one that brought us together in the first place, that is going on outside of the scene we have created. When we do that, we have already lost.
Not that it makes a huge difference, but in all honesty, you could say I have a good bit of legal training and education behind me.
Here is why I don’t see the graveness of many things in the same way you do.
The very nature of the Constitutions forbids any branch of the government from taking total control. Because the Patriot Act has been written and signed…it does not mean it is Constitutional. Just about any law can be passed. In order for it to be removed, there HAS to be a challenge. The person challenging has show how they have been harmed. A person cannot say “It could affect me in this way.” They have to show they were indeed affected…otherwise there is no grounds to bring it to court. It is that way with every law… including the Patriot Act. The proof in how the courts struck down parts of the Patriot Act. If the Patriot Act was the supreme law, then they would have no say. Jack, I am no fan of the Patriot Act. I think it is overbearing and poorly thought out. It is dangerous.
Aside from that, the Judicial Branch has stepped out of their roles in many ways too. They rule from the bench and create laws. That is not their place…they are there to interpret the law based on the Constitution. That’s it.
As a Christian, I DO believe there will be an evil One World government someday. What is also true, though, is that every generation believes they are the last. For me to say in no uncertain turns, yes, the end is coming soon…it is foolish and arrogant. Is that the aim of the government now? At times it sure looks that way. I worry because many of the “social systems” we have in place are very socialist in their purpose, goals, and implementations. Socialism is evil. It takes away the rights of a person and gives them to the Collective. And yes, I see the contradiction in my opening thoughts on the thread with this statement. That is the exact reason I brought it up. I think the call was a good one, but at the same time it was wrong. Lying is wrong, but being so truthful it hurts society seems just as wrong.
I feel you are being unfair to me and yourself, when you say or assume that I am not politically astute or I am ignorant of what is going on around us because I don’ t see things in a certain way. I started this thread with hopes of getting a little back and forth, but not having it turn ugly (my fault too). Like Damagemouse said a couple pages back, “I don’t even know what I am arguing anymore.” It could not be a truer statement. At the same time, though, I think it proves what I was saying. We are on the way to losing everything, because we get bogged down like this.

reply to post by jackinthebox


Jack, I think you and I see things much more closely than you think. It is clear there parts of issues or statutes we don’t see eye to eye on…very much so at that. Here is a problem I see, not just with you and me, but in many people now. They agree on things, but the way they should be implemented is where the problems start. It is a “line in the sand” that really isn’t there. We find ways hunker down and refuse to budge. We think every issue, every debate, is a must win. I am not saying compromise is a good thing, indeed , it is treachery to yourself. However, we get lost in the battle amongst us, and forget the larger war, the original one that brought us together in the first place, that is going on outside of the scene we have created. When we do that, we have already lost.
Not that it makes a huge difference, but in all honesty, you could say I have a good bit of legal training and education behind me.
Here is why I don’t see the graveness of many things in the same way you do.
The very nature of the Constitutions forbids any branch of the government from taking total control. Because the Patriot Act has been written and signed…it does not mean it is Constitutional. Just about any law can be passed. In order for it to be removed, there HAS to be a challenge. The person challenging has show how they have been harmed. A person cannot say “It could affect me in this way.” They have to show they were indeed affected…otherwise there is no grounds to bring it to court. It is that way with every law… including the Patriot Act. The proof in how the courts struck down parts of the Patriot Act. If the Patriot Act was the supreme law, then they would have no say. Jack, I am no fan of the Patriot Act. I think it is overbearing and poorly thought out. It is dangerous.
Aside from that, the Judicial Branch has stepped out of their roles in many ways too. They rule from the bench and create laws. That is not their place…they are there to interpret the law based on the Constitution. That’s it.
As a Christian, I DO believe there will be an evil One World government someday. What is also true, though, is that every generation believes they are the last. For me to say in no uncertain turns, yes, the end is coming soon…it is foolish and arrogant. Is that the aim of the government now? At times it sure looks that way. I worry because many of the “social systems” we have in place are very socialist in their purpose, goals, and implementations. Socialism is evil. It takes away the rights of a person and gives them to the Collective. And yes, I see the contradiction in my opening thoughts on the thread with this statement. That is the exact reason I brought it up. I think the call was a good one, but at the same time it was wrong. Lying is wrong, but being so truthful it hurts society seems just as wrong.
I feel you are being unfair to me and yourself, when you say or assume that I am not politically astute or I am ignorant of what is going on around us because I don’ t see things in a certain way. I started this thread with hopes of getting a little back and forth, but not having it turn ugly (my fault too). Like Damagemouse said a couple pages back, “I don’t even know what I am arguing anymore.” It could not be a truer statement. At the same time, though, I think it proves what I was saying. We are on the way to losing everything, because we get bogged down like this.

Sorry, I don't know how I posted that twice.

Here is an article from the New American, written by Thomas A. Burzynski, which gives roots of where the idea of the Constitution being suspended came from.
It is very well written. Please take the time to check it out...
www.constitution.org...

I am interested in what you think.

reply to post by _Johnny_Utah_

Jack, I think you and I see things much more closely than you think. It is clear there parts of issues or statutes we don’t see eye to eye on…very much so at that. Here is a problem I see, not just with you and me, but in many people now. They agree on things, but the way they should be implemented is where the problems start. It is a “line in the sand” that really isn’t there. We find ways hunker down and refuse to budge. We think every issue, every debate, is a must win. I am not saying compromise is a good thing, indeed , it is treachery to yourself. However, we get lost in the battle amongst us, and forget the larger war, the original one that brought us together in the first place, that is going on outside of the scene we have created. When we do that, we have already lost.

I value your right to hold a seperate opinion from myself or from anyone else. But when you try to argue against opinions that I hold which are based on thorough research and facts, I will show you no quarter. Unless one is fully informed, their opinion has no validity. You are arguing that the people of this nation are not entitled to be fully informed on issues which directly effect them, and therefore you endorse the invalidation of public opinion. So without access to the facts, it doesn't really matter what our opinions are on any other topic.

I am not the sort who decides to "hunker down and refuse to budge." I will make my argument rigorously, to be certain. But I will not refuse to accept valid evidence which may be contrary to my argument. I am not beyond changing my opinion, as long as it can be supported beyond that which I have already discovered. You have not shown, and cannot show any fact that will support that ignorance is a valid argument to anything.

EDIT to add:

Not that it makes a huge difference, but in all honesty, you could say I have a good bit of legal training and education behind me.

If your training and education are based on half truths, propoganda, or is not specialized to focus on the topic at hand, then you are correct, it really does not make a huge difference at all. I myself have formal education, life experience dealing with these issues directly, and independent research to validate my opinions.

I will return shortly...







[edit on 2/15/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by jackinthebox


Did you read the article from the New American?

reply to post by _Johnny_Utah_

Here is why I don’t see the graveness of many things in the same way you do.
The very nature of the Constitutions forbids any branch of the government from taking total control. Because the Patriot Act has been written and signed…it does not mean it is Constitutional. Just about any law can be passed. In order for it to be removed, there HAS to be a challenge. The person challenging has show how they have been harmed. A person cannot say “It could affect me in this way.” They have to show they were indeed affected…otherwise there is no grounds to bring it to court. It is that way with every law… including the Patriot Act. The proof in how the courts struck down parts of the Patriot Act. If the Patriot Act was the supreme law, then they would have no say. Jack, I am no fan of the Patriot Act. I think it is overbearing and poorly thought out. It is dangerous.

You have already started off this section of your argument with an invalid point. The Constitution is no longer a valid authority to forbid anything.

Yes, a person can or persons can challenge a law, but not based on Constitutional authority. Ask yourself this. When someone sues because they were beat up by a cop, do they sue because their Constitutional rights were violated. No. They sue because their Civil Rights were violated, which is not the same thing. A violation of Civil Rights is a matter of public policy NOT Constitutional authority.

The fact that they were able to strike down portions of the Patriot Act has no bearing on its affect AFTER it was passed, and therefore impeaches your "proof."

Please understand, I am not here trying to recruit people to share my opinion that the Patriot Act is bad. My hopes are that people will bother to take the time to actually understand what it is, what it means to the core values of this nation, and how the people will be affected.

But if we have no right to know, or to ask questions, then what does it matter? Should we blindly accept that it is for the good of the people, and will make us safer, simply because the President says so but can't really tell us why because it is a state secret?

I will return shortly...

[edit on 2/15/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by _Johnny_Utah_

Aside from that, the Judicial Branch has stepped out of their roles in many ways too. They rule from the bench and create laws. That is not their place…they are there to interpret the law based on the Constitution. That’s it.

Actually, no. They are there to arbitrarily decide what is "in the best interest of the public," not wether or not something is Constitutional, as a matter of public policy. All of this I have already discussed in other threads, which I invite you to view.

As a Christian, I DO believe there will be an evil One World government someday. What is also true, though, is that every generation believes they are the last. For me to say in no uncertain turns, yes, the end is coming soon…it is foolish and arrogant. Is that the aim of the government now? At times it sure looks that way. I worry because many of the “social systems” we have in place are very socialist in their purpose, goals, and implementations. Socialism is evil. It takes away the rights of a person and gives them to the Collective. And yes, I see the contradiction in my opening thoughts on the thread with this statement. That is the exact reason I brought it up. I think the call was a good one, but at the same time it was wrong. Lying is wrong, but being so truthful it hurts society seems just as wrong.

The only reason that each generation has turned out to be wrong in believing they were the last, is because they remained vigilant, and were fully aware that one day, there will indeed be the last generation. You know which generation it will be? The one who thinks, "well it hasn't happened so far, so it can't happen to us."

For the record, I do not believe that the principles of Socialism are "evil," but certainly have been used in recent times to legitimize oligarchy which is actually in direct contradiction to those principles. There is nothing wrong with looking out for the collective good of the people, unless it is to the detriment of such personal freedoms as those outlined in the Constitution, and if the leaders are not bound by the same principles which they implement.

Lying is wrong, if the people need to know. The people need to know if their country is attacked by terrorists who shoot down an airliner. The do not need to know how to build a stealth bomber, or the coordinates of an officer on a secret mission for CIA. If it is going to affect how a citizen votes, or if their personal safety is at risk, then these are clear examples of when the public has every right to be fully informed.

You have argued that if Flight 800 was shot down by terrorists, the people did not need to know, and that America suffered no harm as a result. I have already argued clearly that you are not correct, but you have chosen to overlook my argument and repeat your own falsity. IF Americans had known that we had been attacked by terrorists once already, 9/11 might never have happened. The people would have been vigilant. The government never would have gotten away with their feigned ill-preparedness to prevent 9/11. We see our rights being stripped away in the name of "security." But where was all this security after Flight 800 was shot down? From this I conclude that all of this new "security" actually has nothing to do with public safety, but some alternate agenda.

I will return shortly...












[edit on 2/15/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by _Johnny_Utah_

I feel you are being unfair to me and yourself, when you say or assume that I am not politically astute or I am ignorant of what is going on around us because I don’ t see things in a certain way. I started this thread with hopes of getting a little back and forth, but not having it turn ugly (my fault too). Like Damagemouse said a couple pages back, “I don’t even know what I am arguing anymore.” It could not be a truer statement. At the same time, though, I think it proves what I was saying. We are on the way to losing everything, because we get bogged down like this.

I did not make such a claim based on your opinions, but your lack of facts to support your opinions. Did you expect to get away with issuing a challenge to the members of this community, and then not have it pointed out that you have a severe lack of knowledge in the subject matter we discuss here?

You're not going to get "a little back and forth" when you came here to challenge the very thing that we do here, and that is to DENY IGNORANCE, by asking the really tough questions and uncovering well hidden facts. The only reason we have gotten "bogged down like this" is because of you. You are the poster-child of the very people we are trying to reach before we are ALL sent to slave-labor camps or worse. And we are not trying to reach you as if we were some organization recruiting to do the work of the devil. The TRUTH is calling you. And this is why I have chosen to stay here and continue to argue with you. I really don't care what the rest of your opinions are on any other subject, as long as you snap out of this complacency that is gripping America.

Please, just look at some other threads. Look at the facts that are presented. Find out for yourself what is happening. Formulate your own opinions based on every bit of evidence you can find on any topic. But if you do, realize that it is to the detriment of the argument you have presented here in this thread. That being, that you can somehow know the truth with your eyes closed for you.

You seem to have some interest in the Constitution. I have started a few threads which give an overview about some of the things I have learned. Please, take the time to look. You will never really know what you are talking about, unless you KNOW what you are talking about. And this includes learning when you are wrong to the benefit of formulating a more sound opinion.

I will return shortly...

reply to post by _Johnny_Utah_


I just did. Well, about half of it anyway, but found that I have already uncovered facts which contradict the author's assertions. If you wish to argue the merits of his argument on a point by point basis, I suggest you start a new thread on the topic, which I will be happy to participate in. If you decide to start such a thread, please send me a U2U to inform me.

Now we're getting somewhere.

1622. National emergencies (read the last paragraph)

I linked the whole code, but from what I can tell, the last paragraph, (d.), says that national emergencies are automatically terminated after a year if certain requirements are not fulfilled by the president.

(a.2.A-C) could be interpreted to mean that older emergencies are not terminated by this law… but I’m not sure.

Comments?

This is the “d” section of current US code:

(d) Automatic termination of national emergency; continuation notice from President to Congress; publication in Federal Register
Any national emergency declared by the President in accordance with this subchapter, and not otherwise previously terminated, shall terminate on the anniversary of the declaration of that emergency if, within the ninety-day period prior to each anniversary date, the President does not publish in the Federal Register and transmit to the Congress a notice stating that such emergency is to continue in effect after such anniversary.

This is the section that I am asking about:

except that such termination shall not affect—

(A) any action taken or proceeding pending not finally concluded or determined on such date;
(B) any action or proceeding based on any act committed prior to such date; or
(C) any rights or duties that matured or penalties that were incurred prior to such date.

It looks like, to me, that this law pertains to new national emergencies, but may not be terminating old ones?

I am having a little trouble with the doublespeak in the code.

reply to post by jackinthebox


I was referring to the back and forth you and I were having with respect to the Constitution. So, yes, a formal education in Law…it does have a bearing and it does mean I know a little bit about what I am talking about. I am not some store clerk who started chatted with you while you were getting a cup of coffee. It took great effort and desire( just like you have) to get where I am. I end up enraging people because I refuse to settle for the easy answer. I want to know the reasoning .
Differing interpretations of how we see things is natural, normal and healthy. That is why I chose the educational paths I did (yes, I sought more than one degree). By their very nature it places people on separate sides.
So, here:
To say anything can have more of a say, whether it’s a policy or rule made by public officials, and is absolute or supersedes the Constitution….it’s just false.
When you speak of public policy, you are getting lost in the words it seems. Yes, it is a policy, but it is policy because it has been found to be constitutional or it hasn’t been challenged as not being such. Are traffic violations unconstitutional because they are not in the Constitution? Should people be able to dance naked in the streets? Should we allow illegal aliens to come across the boarder (I’m not meaning to bring up enforcement issues)? Of course not, there are policies and laws in place which determine how people should behave. A policy does not equate with unconstitutionality or a usurping of power .

Now, a point in fact is there have been things over the years which have been ruled AS constitutional and but clearly are not. You can go to any law library and pick up a volume of a certain court’s ruling and see. Again, however, that is an issue with the courts, and the interpretations of the judges themselves. But still, by saying that, their reflections and decisions have the Constitution in mind. If they didn’t ,it would by what a judge thinks is the right thing to do. The judges, the entire legal system, is governed by the Constitution, not simply policy. When the President takes office, he swears to uphold the Constitution. Impeachments are sought for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” It shows the Constitutional power is still absolute. If the President didn’t have to follow the Constitution he would never have to worry about impeachment.
Yep, time for a new thread...i think.

reply to post by NoPhobos

I think we are going to start a new thread for this. We have drifted away from where we started................................quite a bit away.

Originally posted by _Johnny_Utah_
Yep, time for a new thread...i think.

Please post a link here if you get around to making a new thread.