"Damn The Country, Obama Must Fail"

reply to post by Hx3_1963


Perhaps the most important safeguard of all would be a simple phrase with which to begin any new framework:

"A Human Being cannot be a slave, and shall have no master other than him or herself."

We all bow at the alter of our great benefactor. That is not a bull# sentiment.

Freedom to put forth ones ideological thoughts and endeavors is actually sentient-godlike(someone give me a verb) in its simplicity.

I for one, do not prescribe to the fallacy that to be free to voice ones opinion, is but a mistake of evolution, but a simple extension of our own free will.

To the corruption of our government.

Until recently, government was allowed to skim moneys off of the top without anyone giving a #.

But in the last 35 years, the corruption has entered a whole new arena.
They do not want to just steal our money, but our children's and g'children's
money.

The 13th amendment to the constitution states-Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

I am sorry folks but indentured servitude exists for everyone that is born into the US at this time.

Government Numbers (+- 400 Trillion) 14 Trillion /185 million=$75,000
My Numbers-Debt due to all current debt including all SS MEDI and ETC
385 Trillion/350 Million People=$1,100,000/person

We the people do not exist anymore-# Them and The Four Horses they rode in on.

I am not mad with the government, which a lot of people get really, really, really pissed at me for. Hell, who is to blame? WE ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Remember my first statement-it was bull#-he is the reason-we are the reason-who else is to blame?

AND SIR WILL YOU STAND WITH ME OR WILL YOU SUFFER UNTO HIM

I will give my life for my brethren, though I do not know them, they will rejoice in my sacrifice, for they do not know the pain they suffer, for their eyes have been clouded.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace.We seek not your counsel or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; may your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!" --Samuel Adams

reply to post by endisnighe
Speaking of Government/Corporate/Citizen debt...

You will find this link "Mind Boggling" to say the least... :shk:
Wicked US Debt Clock

Look up the most recent Census...average lifetime wage earnings and do a little math...this kind of debt will enslave multiple generations just paying on the fiat interest...let alone principle...

[edit on 8/12/2009 by Hx3_1963]

reply to post by Hx3_1963

The (simplistic) way I look at this is…

The Federal Government is a massive Corporation, with thousands of Subsidiaries’ (Companies), that in turn serve the Master/Masses…

You have described everything brilliantly as always my dear Borgian friend and uttered in the process a very key word.

Simple! Make it simple make it stupid. The Constitution was a very simple thing until the Corporate Government turned it into a ‘living instrument’ subject to interpretation by the Courts/Corporation.

Legalese is designed to obfuscate and confuse to in essence trick the slave class into always saying “Well, it’s not that simple you know”…

Duh yes it is. It’s only not simple when you make it complicated.

That is in essence what Lawyers do and the Congress does make it very, very, very complicated and confusing.

Hundreds of thousands of code laws exist on the books. Technically none of them are actually legal under the Constitution. They are designed to rob, confuse and manipulate people into accepting that they as mere mortals can simply not comprehend the importance and meaning of them. “It’s complicated you see because, blah, blah, blah” where half the blah is in Latin which is a ‘Dead Language” Meaning not even the people (The Italians) who originally invented it speak it, just Lawyers and Officers of the Court.

It’s basically Code for you might as well be dead because you can’t possibly understand what we do!

You had better listen, you had better submit, let me advise you on how this all works…for a fee of course, and let me create a contract with you do that…for a profit of course…and you can trust me…even though I have already taken an Oath of Office that supersedes our relationship and contract.

Look at the Health Care fiasco, 1,000 pages long, most of it legalize.

How complicated can you make…if you get sick we the government will pay for it. Evidently pretty darn complicated because there are 5 different 1,000 page long bills. A thousand pages? Heck you should be promising me immortality if it takes that many words to say “The government will pay when you get sick”.

That’s what’s broken in our government the Lawyers making it as complex as possible to enrich themselves and the corporation as much as possible, by making it nearly impossible for you to understand what the heck they are saying.

Tolstoy’s War and Peace a literary classic is a 1,000 pages long and few people read it because it’s a thousand pages long and it’s one of the greatest stories of all time every written.

Read 5 different 1,000 page long Health Care bills full of legalese and code law, Latin, etc., etc.,

That’s how they enslave us by making the simple as complicated as humanly as possible so you submit to it out of sheer frustration. Sadly all 1,000 pages is a contract that legally entitles a slew of corporations something at your expense as the person who has to slave and be taxed for the corporation.

They are so sadistic they can’t even say after robbing you deaf, dumb and blind and totally enslaving you and stripping you of your humanity and dignity that they can’t just say “The Government will take care of you if you get sick”.

The Constitution was simple, so are the Bill of Rights and the first 12 legal amendments.

After that it’s just a house of mirrors designed by lawyers to keep you frustrated, feeling and being impotent and deaf, dumb and blind.

Great points, and a great simple explanation. People need to hear the simple truth about their government and their real laws.




[edit on 12/8/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

reply to post by Credge


From your response I had a good idea it seems even though I was replying to Geladinhu. That's ok though.

I was hinting at the Marxist view that the rights of the individual matter only insomuch as it benefits the collective versus where the individual is glorified to the point where the common welfare is irrelevant and vanquishing whatever stands in one's way is the practice (basically a Luciferian doctrine).

One is to sacrifice the cell to the body, the other is to sacrifice the body to the cell. Flow of abundance is interrupted in both cases and thus decay ensues.

All having equal and inalienable rights is a synthesis of these two evils into something less evil, perhaps even somewhat good. There is immortality here. Abundance flows freely and all partake.

reply to post by EnlightenUp


Yeah, sorry about that. I didn't see the reply to bit in the other part until after I read this and redoubled over it.

And once I read that I realized what you wrote. Kind of an odd moment for me . Sorry about that.

Originally posted by Hx3_1963
In all actuality no Company or Citizen completely owns anything of real value they possess…

You can pay on your house for 30 yrs to acquire a “Deed/Title”, but, if you fail to pay your Land Taxes, your house can be forfeited to Government…

You Car…fail to pay Licensing Fees/Taxes/ect; said car will be revoked…

Your Personal Goods…fail to pay your Income Tax and said Items will be revoked… :shk:

[edit on 8/12/2009 by Hx3_1963]

I have talked about this usually to the sound of crickets.

Anyway, you can own the car, throw it in a garage and not pay any further fees on it. You just cannot use it on the roadways.

You aren't obligated to produce income, thus you can avoid paying those taxes.

But, the worst of all is the foolish notion that you own land. How do you own something that you continually have to make payments on? If you fail to produce income, you cannot make the payments. If you fail to make those payments, your lease is terminated and the land confiscated. Inability to be secure on our own property is slavery indeed.

It's the land. We're just serfs producing for the corporation.

On the theme that Protoplasmic brought to the thread and in regards to your comments about land law, look into Hawaiian law. Here common law is still held in utmost.

You may only lease land. Even if you are able to pay your taxes, your rights to it pass back to the Government after a period of 99 years.

You CANNOT 'own' land in any real sense there. Even if you pay your taxes.

Unless you are James Dole (Dole Pineapple) of course and you used the Feds to strong-arm yourself into the role of chieftain.

Originally posted by JayinAR
On the theme that Protoplasmic brought to the thread and in regards to your comments about land law, look into Hawaiian law. Here common law is still held in utmost.

You may only lease land. Even if you are able to pay your taxes, your rights to it pass back to the Government after a period of 99 years.

You CANNOT 'own' land in any real sense there. Even if you pay your taxes.

Unless you are James Dole (Dole Pineapple) of course and you used the Feds to strong-arm yourself into the role of chieftain.

One of my friends and neighbors from years gone by was an heir to the Castle dynasty, of Castle Cook on the Islands. They had quite the little fiefdom set up there in Hawaii. He was a major share holder in several banks too.

The Christian missionaries basically helped a few powerful families and corporations 'rape' the islands of their wealth.

Hawaii is such a beautiful place too, but there is no getting around the fact it was basically stolen from the Hawaiians who stuck out in the middle of the ocean didn't even have hardly a place to run away to escape.

A classic corporate take over and incorporation of a land.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


It is sickening what happened to the Natives there.

Well, and the Natives here on the Continental, for that matter.
But at least here they get to put Casinos on the FINEST pieces of real estate, the arrid places.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Edit - Double post. Damned computer.

[edit on 12-8-2009 by JayinAR]

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

It is sickening what happened to the Natives there.

Well, and the Natives here on the Continental, for that matter.
But at least here they get to put Casinos on the FINEST pieces of real estate, the arrid places.

The poorest places in Apalachia and the Carolinas where people lived in Tar Paper Shacks and Shanties started finally dissapearing in the 1980s.

Most of the Hawaiian natives live in even poorer squalor than that. Low paying hospitality jobs in the Hotels and Restaurants, and in agriculture is about all that is available to them. Everything has to be shipped in from somewhere from a can of coke to a magazine over thousands of miles of ocean, which makes the cost skyrocket. Its funny what our corporate government does, it moves into the most beautiful spots on the planet and turns them into cash cows for itself and hell on earth for the people who lived and live there. The Average American tourist spends 300.00 a day, the average Japanese 500.00 a day, and the average Hawaiian is lucky to take home 280.00 a week. All that wealth being spend and almost none of it goes to them.

Crazy world Jay, it's a crazy world I tell you!

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


I saw a Gallon of milk on display for 9.47usd.

I wanted to take a picture but I didn't have my camera.
And all of what you said is aside from the fact that the native population actually reduced by 85% after the missionaries (the government) TOOK the Harvard educated types there.

And boy how we look up to Harvard!

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

I saw a Gallon of milk on display for 9.47usd.

I wanted to take a picture but I didn't have my camera.
And all of what you said is aside from the fact that the native population actually reduced by 85% after the missionaries (the government) TOOK the Harvard educated types there.

And boy how we look up to Harvard!

Well I have to admitt I love the Kahala Hilton, I mean from a pure I am White Anglo Saxon I am hear serve me standpoint...we did set the place up nice!

We sure screwed the natives though, oh all nice and legal, as usual we got them to sign the contracts. Ah King Kahmahamahe your royal wonderful greatness and highness, sign here, sign here, here, here, and here, and here is that bauble head doll you wanted, she's a beaut huh Kahmi old boy...King? Oh ha, you were before you signed this paper...no be a good lad and take my horse to the stable...what stable...oh your house would make a good stable...no I am sorry it was your house until you signed the piece of paper...all legal see your signature there? Oh don't forget your bauble head.

Rome is utterly shameless. It's why it's important to know the law and try to avoid all the enslaving contracts at all costs. Every time you turn around they are trying to trick you into another kind of contract.

China has a unifed govt, increasingly business-oriented and communist in name only.

The US is perpetually divided between Goofus and Gorfus, or "the Democrats" and "the Republicans," as they are more formally known. They can't agree on anything because they are out to screw each other over as a primary mission.

China has a government that functions as a bloc. We have a freaking punch-and-judy show.

Do the math. Its scary.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Since World War II, party control of the U.S. government has been formally divided for twenty-six years and unified for eighteen.

Between the elections of 1946 and 1990. Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush had to coexist for at least a two-year stretch in each case with opposite-party majorities in the Senate or House or both.

Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter have had again, for at least a two year stretch House and Senate majorities of their own party. The Political Science says Congressional committees, acting
as oversight bodies, will give more trouble to administrations run by the opposite party than to those of their own party.

‘‘You cannot compound a successful government out of antagonism - Woodrow Wilson’’

Another idea, sort of a staple of political science, which states:
Major laws will pass more frequently under unified party control than under
divided control. A party that controls the House, the Senate,and the presidency, will get program through more expeditiously. Absent such party control, legislative ‘‘deadlock’’ or ‘‘stalemate’’ will set in.

neither the ‘‘harrass and ridicule the party’s administration’’ effect nor the divided control causes deadlock effect, will prevail and statistically, there is not much difference in the political record going back as far as 1946 to 1990.

‘‘Divided government is not working,’’

Oh but it IS! This is what we should have been during the Bush years but I guess it took someone like Obama to continue where Bush left off that we the people FINALLY started saying,, OH NO YOU DON'T ! NOT AGAIN!

Divided Government is not working, that was the battle cry for 1992 and one we will be hearing a lot more soon is, ‘‘Only the voters can fix this mess.’’ I believe it will happen as it did that November of that year, the voters performed on cue by trading in George H.W. Bush for Bill Clinton, keeping solid Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, and consequently opting for single-party control of the U.S. government for the first time since 1977–80, under Jimmy Carter.

It was a dramatic shift, from a divided government stuck in neutral to one in which a single party was operating and had well-defined goals.

The question was, could a unified party control overcome gridlock and make the system work.

Now Skeptic Overlord, mentions he is, in view, very interested in politics, and he may recall, Once Clinton took office in 1993, Clinton had scored the highest success rate in Congress of any first-year president since Dwight D.
reference = Eisenhower.www.statemaster.com...

But what happened a year later,?


The downfall came for Clinton when he attempted a health care plan and numerous other Democratic ideas. It was arguably the worst and least effective Congress their had been in the previous 50 years. It was also the most destructive and one of if not thee most nastiest, In Fact, in 1994 New York Times, said:

‘‘Bill Clinton and the Democrats have failed to persuade the American people that they can govern as a party’’ and pointed to ‘‘rising

public frustration at the majority party’s inability to govern even when it has the keys to the Capitol and the White House.’’
www.nytimes.com...

Why the results even out


in both volume and ideological direction, U.S. lawmaking seems to ‘‘even out’’ across conditions of party control. ‘‘National moods’’ help to override conditions of party control (that is, as the U.S. system varies among conditions of party control, ‘‘moods’’ can
cut down on the kinds of differences in legislative volume or ideological direction,
or both, that conventional ‘‘party government’’ wisdom would lead us to predict). Your concerns are valid Skeptic and while Democrats are attempting to make this an issue of partisan political machinations of the extreme right, it is in fact independants that are the most vocal and many very disappointed democrats that attend these town hall meetings.

During the Civil War and the Reconstruction era, the Progressive
era, the New Deal era, and the 1960s through the early 1970s, the argument
goes, an intense public activism drove up the volume of ambitious lawmaking
and tilted its product to the left. At other times, less has been undertaken, and
on average its tenor has been more conservative.

You might remember Don Johnson (D-Ga.), fresh from voting for the president’s big government budget in 1993 to face picketing, demands for his recall, and a very a angry town-hall meeting with 350 people. That might not seem like much but in the small community of Grovetown, it was a startling thing to behold and he was boo'ed and hissed at and he was visibly shaken by it.

A good analogy to the 103d congress is Truman’s Congress of 1949–50. Democrats at that time, ewere all pumped up like they are now where voters who mis-judged the anger of the people and calling them names the way pelosi has, only fueled the embers hotter and democratic voters who have traditionally looked at this as if it was "there team" rather than give the respect to the angered people who protest as being a fellow American, they ridiculed them much like we see today when they are called the "fringe" or the "Birthers" etc. If anyone could get a helath care plan pASSED it should have been Obama, but the mistake he made was turning his nose up at Americans who had a specific request to have him disclose his original BC the same way McCain had to when Obama supporters INISISTED McCain disclose his where McCain was subject to a congressional investigation, The republicans did not want to look petty making Obama bow to the same, BUT the American Voters did! When he bent over backwards providing consolation booby prize proofs of his natural born status and more a more questions started being raised, I think this had a lot more to do with the anger we see here now. Especially when we just had eight years of Bush pulling some spuriously spun scandals. Rather than see that WE the People are the team that ALL voters should give their allegiance to, there guy won and thats great but we want him to be OUR guy too and their is a few items we want explained. Americans want to know what his BC has to say.

Why?

It doesn't matter, they wanted to know and Americans asking to see it is all anyone needs to know. We can make the President matter less than our need to know the president more.

1948 election triumph, the democrats again tried a replay of the New Deal and scored a few victories (notably in housing) but soon it got very nasty and stalemate politics in which most of their program—including again, national health insurance—died and a surge of intense conservatism took over with a an anti-Communist theme like we are seeing today and it prevailed. For liberal Democratic legislators, it was a deadly environment.


No body wants Obama to fail, unless he is doing something very stupid and everyone wants health care, they just don't want it the way Obama has put his plan together and if you haven't read it, there are many many things just flat out unacceptable in there that quite honestly should have everyone as pissed off as anyone of those disrupting town hall meetings. You have to keep in mind, the whole Idea of protest in this way is ABOUT getting your anger accross and they don't care what the information is they are keeping from being said, THEY ALREADY KNOW what is in that plan and inspite of any attempts to "stop the smears, Obama has played that one already and people have had enough of his websites saying he is telling the truth and the angry mobs are just a bunch of racists.

That will only make it worse for him because it justifies being racist to someone like that what ever his color is. People do NOT trust him and they shouldn't.

We had an eight year education for catching a liar in the white house AND Obama has already topped his predecessor.

The one sure way to avoid a revolution, get our two party system back and our Government would be to reboot the Government, Format it of all its incumbent members in both the house and senate and vote the "other guy" that isn't doing it for the money, someone like Joe The Plumber, or any blue collar guy with the passion to try as long as he has never been a lobbyist or had past experience as a professional politician.

That would really be something to see and the change we'd get would be REAL because they all just got the boot and we would do it again if they even start looking like the bums we've seen for the past umteen years. The only change we got in this Presidents name, is the spelling.

All of this is the natural progression of any societal system that is governed by money and the need for power. At first, you have a system that basically works - our system is designed to protect from monarchy, despot dictators etc. It is not designed to be self aware, or self-protect from money, corporations, etc.

A democratic two party system works fine, to a point, in a capitalistic society, but it only works as long as the leaders cannot be bought and paid for. If I had a lot of money, I could own the government, pure and simple. Even better, I could force or restrict laws in such a way that my wealth actually increases, regardless of the amount of money I spend on owning the government. My hold strengthens, and ultimately there is no real difference between me and the government, between my corporation and the leaders of the country.

However, just because I have all this power, doesn't mean I have the wisdom to use it wisely, and that's why we're in trouble. Ultimately, any political system, any society is safe and happy with a wise leader - regardless of the political system that puts them there. Could be a monarchy, a dictatorship, communism, it is not the system itself that is successful or not, it is the leaders that are.

The minute you start to have leaders that care only about their own power, their own enrichment, etc, you have a country that is suffering from the excess of it's leaders. Maybe that country revolts.. designs a new system to protect itself, but ultimately, over time, without constant vigil by the citizens of that country, all systems are corruptible by corrupt leaders. Not all, however, are able to be rescued by benign leaders.

It is not whether or not you can fix the system that is the issue. You must fix the people within and without of that system. All leaders should be concerned about the welfare of all citizens, above and beyond any other consideration. Once their personal feelings, and interests, and wealth, are made their first priority, then those leaders are toxic.

Power corrupts, without uncorruptible leaders, we're all powerless and in serious trouble.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord



“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”

-Benito Mussolini

Republic v. Democracy
Contributed by David Barton
Sunday, 22 July 2007
Last Updated Thursday, 17 April 2008



We have grown accustomed to hearing that we are a democracy; such was never the intent. The form of government entrusted to us by our Founders was a republic, not a democracy.


Our Founders had an opportunity to establish a democracy in America and chose not to. In fact, the Founders made clear that we were not, and were never to become, a democracy: [D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. James Madison Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. John Adams A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way.


The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness [excessive license] which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty. Fisher Ames, Author of the House Language for the First Amendment We have seen the tumult of democracy terminate . . . as [it has] everywhere teminated, in despotism. . . . Democracy!



savage and wild. Thou who wouldst bring down the virtuous and wise to thy level of folly and guilt. Gouverneur Morris, Signer and Penman of the Constitution [T]he experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived. John Quincy Adams A simple democracy . . . is one of the greatest of evils. 8 Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration In democracy . . . there are commonly tumults and disorders. . . . Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth. Noah Webster Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state, it is very subjet to caprice and the madness of popular rage. John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration It may generally be remarked that the more a government resembles a pure democracy the more they abound with disorder and confusion. Zephaniah Swift, Author of America's First Legal Text Many Americans today seem to be unable to define the difference between the two, but there is a difference, a big difference. That difference rests in the source of authority.


A pure democracy operates by direct majority vote of the people.


When an issue is to be decided, the entire population votes on it; the majority wins and rules. A republic differs in that the general population elects representatives who then pass laws to govern the nation. A democracy is the rule by majority feeling (what the Founders described as a "mobocracy"; a republic is rule by law. If the source of law for a democracy is the popular feeling of the people, then what is the source of law for the American republic? According to Founder Noah Webster: [O]ur citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion.



The transcendent values of Biblical natural law were the foundation of the American republic. Consider the stability this provides: in our republic, murder will always be a crime, for it is always a crime according to the Word of God. however, in a democracy, if majority of the people decide that murder is no longer a crime, murder will no longer be a crime.


America's immutable principles of right and wrong were not based on the rapidly fluctuating feelings and emotions of the people but rather on what Montesquieu identified as the "principles that do not change." 14 Benjamin Rush similarly observed: [W]here there is no law, there is no liberty; and nothing deserves the name of law but that which is certain and Committee for the Constitution.



In the American republic, the "principles which did not change" and which were "certain and universal in their operation upon all the members of the community" were the principles of Biblical natural law. In fact, so firmly were these principles ensconced in the American republic that early law books taught that government was free to set its own policy only if God had not ruled in an area. For example, Blackstone's Commentaries explained: To instance in the case of murder: this is expressly forbidden by the Divine. . . . If any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it we are bound to transgress that human law. . . . But, with regard to matters that are . . . not commanded or forbidden by those superior laws such, for instance, as exporting of wool into foreign countries; here the . . . legislature has scope and opportunity to interpose. The Founders echoed that theme: All [laws], however, may be arranged in two different classes. 1) Divine. 2) Human. . . . But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God. . . . Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine.



James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice [T]he law . . . dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this. 18 Alexander Hamilton, Signer of the Constitution [T]he . . . law established by the Creator . . . extends over the whole globe, is everywhere and at all times binding upon mankind. . . .


[This] is the law of God by which he makes his way known to man and is paramount to all human control. 19 Rufus King, Signer of the Constitution The Founders understood that Biblical values formed the basis of the republic and that the republic would be destroyed
if the people's knowledge of those values should ever be lost.



A republic is the highest form of government devised by man, but it also requires the greatest amount of human care and maintenance. If neglected, it can deteriorate into a variety of lesser forms, including a democracy (a government run by a small council or a group of elite individuals): or dictatorship (a government run by a single individual).


As John Adams explained: [D]emocracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy; such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself
into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable [abominable] cruelty of one or a very few.



Understanding the foundation of the American republic is a vital key toward protecting it.
Endnotes

[edit on 13-8-2009 by Ultradyne]

Thank you for your report.

I have faith now more than ever.

I am certain America will do the right thing as far as Obama is concerned.

The real powerful people are not fools, and they get the work done. One way or another.