War has been declared! Against the American People

reply to post by 051r15


Yes, some actually know what law means, and I guess some think corporate statutes mean the same thing.

I guess this idiot(myself) seems to know more than the attacker.

Thanks for your inclusion to the argument.

Code and law are two totally different things.


e.g.

I never had sexual relations with that woman.

Clinton stated the truth, I being the corporate entity known as WILLIAM CLINTON.

A lawyer can lie and it actually is not a lie. That is why the gov dropped the case. Not because they could not prove the lie, but that they would show the world the absolute corruption of our SYSTEM.

But keep arguing with me people(not you), because I love to see the idiocracy in my country.

reply to post by whatukno


Thank you for your direct response to my concerns and to you answer. If you, however, are referring to Endisnighe as an anarchist I must respectfully disagree. All of what I have read of this posters opinion has been of one who respects the rule of law and not one who advocates lawlessness. Anarchist is not the proper label to place upon this poster.

I can appreciate your distinction between one who feels an obligation to use peaceful means to approach Congress for a redress of grievances and one who it might be inferred is advocating a violent revolution. I advocate peace at all costs, except for freedom. Here is where the O.P. has drawn the line. When petitioning the Congress and other politico's for a redress of grievances is blatantly ignored then what recourse do the people have?

Surely, if the government continues upon its road to folly, it must be understood that those who passionately believe in freedom will do what is necessary to secure it. This was the undeniable actions of our Forefathers, and it will be the undeniable actions of those who hold such principles dear today. If we are to achieve peaceful means of reigning in a rogue government, it will not come about by willfully adding to the clear divisions between those who stand for freedom and those who don't. Either you are an advocate of freedom or you are not. State your case clearly and honestly in this thread, I beseech you, as your ambiguity is wearing thin.

I pray you stand on the side of freedom and that you would find not compromise with the O.P. but rather agreement on what we can do to reign in the atrocities of tyrants. State your case and be clear so that we may move on and discuss the matter at hand, what to do with those who would willingly and blatantly ignore the rule of law!



[edit on 24-12-2009 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by Polynomial C


when the leftists the communists and socialists stack the entire deck with their luciferian devil worshiping candidates, do you call that democracy? i have heard that all the US Senators are members of the Illuminati and that about 85% of the House of Representatives are Illuminati as well.... and most all of them are demonic or luciferian......it is obvious that the Clintons and the Bushes are high luciferians.....and it is quite apparent to me that Obama is also in that league....he is definitely a member of the CFR...which is a group of Illuminati...
see the following and become educated..
www.henrymakow.com
www.realzionsitnews.com

read and learn my friend..... this is serious times we live in...and much evil is everywhere....

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

If you, however, are referring to Endisnighe as an anarchist I must respectfully disagree

Well, I am taking endisnighe's word for it.

I would love to see a government of anarchy in the US

His words not mine.

Anywho, on to your post.

State you case clearly and honestly in this thread, I beseech you, as your ambiguity is wearing thin.

I am all for liberty and freedom. However, I understand that a lot of stupid people live in this country as well. Unfortunately for those of us whos hands don't scrape the ground while we walk, they are forced to make laws to protect these Neanderthals from themselves.

I can agree that the government is spending way too much money, I can also agree that the government is far too big. I can understand a lot of conservative principals, and those principals I do myself agree with. However when it goes beyond that to a wish for total anarchy I also have to draw the line.

Sorry, but I have to believe in the constitution, I also have to believe that if we really want change in our government it's up to the people to vote for people who will change the government.

Part of the problem we have is that the majority are voting these same people into office and they somehow expect change. I think that the Right was expecting change more than people who voted Obama in were.

But to advocate the violent overthrow of the government because they are doing things that a group does not politically agree with is astoundingly stupid.

sour grapes, sour grapes, sour grapes, sour grapes, sour grapes, sour grapes

Obama and the Dems. won the election, and they are now governing. I let my reps. know I wanted health-care reform, and to not take the embarrassing, ignorant, arrogant bowel of a movement that are the tea-baggers seriously.

The bill could have been MORE progressive/liberal in many people's opinions, but, unlike Bush and the rethugs., Obama is actually doing his best to be a leader, and accomplish what he can with an unprecedented level of purely politically motivated recalcitrance. I am in awe of how he maintains such composure having to serve such an ignorant and thankless citizenry.

However, I think his getting everyone to focus on the public option was pure genius. I remember, back in August, all you t-baggers were gloating about health care reform not getting passed. So, I'll say it again--you lost, and your whining is nothing but sour grapes.

Best,
Skunknuts


[edit on 12/24/2009 by skunknuts]

reply to post by Lilitu


I need to do your legwork?

I stated that the congress has passed laws that are unconstitutional. You or someone else states that is not true.

Now you tell me to prove myself wrong!!!!!!!!!!!????

STFU and prove me wrong.

Otherwise STFU.

GGGGGGOOODDD I love arguing with idiots.

reply to post by endisnighe


You wanted us to find you references in the US constitution where it states clearly that the US has citizens. Not for us to prove that laws were constitutional.

Now who is muddying the waters of the debate?

reply to post by skunknuts


Yeah, we the citizenry should bow down to our masters.

If you do not realize it, the government works for us, not the other way around.

God when will people learn from the past. Governments do not and cannot provide for the citizenry.

They can only control and tax.

I am almost finished with arguing with idiocy.

I swear anyone that argues or debates with me use fallacies continuously.

If you do not know what they are, use your manual sitting next to you. Otherwise if you do not have a manual, google it.

As for you whatukno, I STATED CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION.

I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF YOU QUOTE ME, USE THE WHOLE DAMN SENTENCE!

Well why are you asking us? Go "ask a cop". Or have you?

There's one right here in this site waiting for you.

[edit on 24-12-2009 by randyvs]

reply to post by whatukno


And you are right, I mispoke their, I thought I had said Federal anarchy.

The Fed has only limited responsibilities. The States are where the true governance should preside.

My BAD. Sorry for the mistake.

See, I can admit a mistake.

Who else in this damn world of political confusion can.

I may not get my point across perfectly, but I do what I can.

Basically, GOVERNMENT KEEP THE HECK OUT OF MY BUSINESS.

reply to post by randyvs


I do not know if you are speaking to me.

But I have spoken with my local and county PD's and Sherrif's Departments.

They know my position and all three have stated that they will back the Constitution. I am glad the local enforcement offices have the absolute right attitude.

Two of them were kind of What the Hell attitude, but the Sheriff stated he had about 2000 people come in with the same attitude.

At least in my county we are fed up with the Fed thinking they need to govern us directly.

Just keep the hell out of my life. It is not that hard to understand.

Keep out of my life, wallet and every damn thing else.

reply to post by endisnighe


Now I can understand the conservative adage, "The government should deliver the mail and stay out of my business".

But I seriously doubt that you would want to stop at federal anarchy, after all wouldn't the state governments just be as oppressive? Obviously they would have to go as well.

Course if you want to get a good view of anarchy in action in the United States, take a walk around the slums of Detroit for a while. The City government here is so corrupt and useless, it's practically anarchy. A tip for you if you decide to do this, if you get shot, call a cab, cause you will bleed out before an ambulance arrives to your location. Now that's quality anarchy for ya.

Sorry for the one liner guys as I know it very frowned upon.
But what was the french revloution started over? too few peopole with money seeing the great masses wihtout money as nothing but people to give them morem oney. White the top were corrupt, greedy, and had only thei best interests in mind. problem is htey have brainwashed the masses with media, hormones and sedatives in our food, i.e. mcdonlads, they promote the education system but public system is aj oke anymore feeding hte same lies down out childrens throats, no money to send you child to a private school , then you next gen will be another brainwashed consumer. THey drug us wiht painkillers nad mood alterating durgs to keep us calm and lucid, fat and lazy wiht tv and fast food, and owing them money with loans and credit cars. time is ripe for a revolution cept everyone in america is fat lazy and brianwashed to take on the govt cept a few of us. so inevitibaly all we can do is stand back and hope the masons do their swonrn duty to protect a free democracy for the people. a swoft changei s copming, not obamas but another. 2012


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by whatukno


Detroit is a fracking nice suburb compared to where I went to college.

Ever hear of East St. Louis? Cahokia Illinois is right entwined with it. Went their for college for my first 2 years.

No cops, no garbage collection. Hell.

And what I meant by Anarchy is at the federal level. If you have federal control, where can you move?

That was the beauty of our system. But now, the fed controls all the money hence all the laws and regulations.

Where can I move to if I do not agree? Another country. ABSOLUTELY NOT. Three generations and three wars my family has suffered for freedom.

AND I DAMN WELL WILL NOT LET THEM TAKE MINE OR MY FAMILIES FUTURE AWAY.

reply to post by whatukno



You have quoted Endisnighe quite admirably and by his own words he does indeed appear to advocate anarchy, although his exacts words are:

"I would love to see a government of anarchy in the US, but I think the actual prospects of tyranny is more likely"

Let's be clear here, by the very definition of the word, a so called "government of anarchy" is no anarchy at all, and if we are take his words in their full context, then the irony of them speaks clearly as governments are more prone to tyranny than anarchy any day of the week.

Now to your words:

"I am all for liberty and freedom. However, I understand that a lot of stupid people live in this country as well. Unfortunately for those of us whos hands don't scrape the ground while we walk, they are forced to make laws to protect these Neanderthals from themselves."

You are all for freedom if it weren't for the people you declare to be stupid and Neanderthal's? Who do you think you are kidding? The Congress is forced to make laws for stupid people? What sort of elitist nonsense is this? Who are you to decide who is stupid and who is not? Your own admission reveals a stupidity beyond justification. You are all for freedom except for stupid people? Please. If freedom is to have any credibility at all then surely the stupid people are as equally free under the law as those who are fortunate enough to be wiser.

You claim to stand for one who draws the line between those who call for total anarchy and those who stand for freedom, however your own words betray you and while you attempt to quote Endisnighe as one who stands for "total anarchy" his own words do not reveal such a stance. It is your own elitist stance where the self proclaimed intellectuals seemingly deserve more than the stupid, have some legal right to legislate against those less privileged. However, our Constitution, the one you professed a duty towards, does not make any distinction between the intellectual and the stupid, but insists that all people are entitled to the same due process of law.

You wanly and disingenuously apologize for believing in the Constitution of which you continually disrespect by referencing as an un-capitalized word, yet then you turn around and willfully ignore the words of that Constitution and insist that all the people can do to reign in the government is through voting. What sort of treasonous language is this? We the People are far more than a mere democracy where all we can do is vote. We are those who ordained this Constitution and those we elect, those we did not elect but were appointed, all are accountable to the people, not by election but by law!

You claim to believe in a Constitution which is no more than a document that enumerates certain prohibitions upon government and certain rights of the people. You have also, in this thread, openly and willfully mocked the idea of rights being God granted and declared them man made. No more evidence towards the fallibility of man exists than your own fallibility and your own contradictory terms. You profess an allegiance towards a document of which has made undeniably clear is a government made of republican nature while you yourself proclaim the dignities of democracy. You profess to have a love for this document but openly and publicly declare the stupid as unworthy of the same rights as you and presumably me. You publicly advocate a government that would legislate against the stupid to protect you, and presumably I, from them.

The worst part of your rhetoric is that you keep insisting that the O.P. is advocating an overthrow of the government when what I read into his post his a genuine and understandable frustration for an usurpation of government by those who clearly have no intentions of serving the people and would rather profit from the "stupid" people you clearly hold in contempt, who continue to vote for these frauds.

What is astoundingly stupid is to continue down the same tired path we have gone down for almost a century now, and possibly even longer. What is astoundingly stupid is to pretend we are nothing more than an electorate rather than those who hold the inherent political power of this country. What is astoundingly stupid is to buy into your distractions and obfuscation and to accept your charges that the O.P. has advocated anything other than the people taking back the government that belongs to them.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

What is astoundingly stupid is to continue down the same tired path we have gone down for almost a century now, and possibly even longer. What is astoundingly stupid is to pretend we are nothing more than an electorate rather than those who hold the inherent political power of this country. What is astoundingly stupid is to buy into your distractions and obfuscation and to accept your charges that the O.P. has advocated anything other than the people taking back the government that belongs to them.

And exactly how do you propose we take back the government? If not by electing people that will listen to the constituency? Do you propose that we take up arms against our own citizens that were elected via the Constitution?

reply to post by endisnighe



Well bud I think the private sector declared war... It saddens me that the anger towards the private criminals does not match the intensity of the anger towards the FED.
If people called for CEO heads or criminal prosecution that would put the fear of god in both houses of america, private and "public". It would be a much easier task, the politicians would gladly make examples, while quietly pooping in their suits.
ES, I think you guys would get a lot larger crew if you did not seem to exonerate the
criminals who did the lifting by not addressing it...

I honestly believe conservatives cannot because it clashes with beliefs and principles,
earners, producers, job creators, engines of growth etc. The very thing that balances out the governmnet/socialism however that conversion takes place. Never the less it
is an encouragement, if the TEA parties focused their energy at these big boys they would fear the consequences of a repeat. I would also think that conservative should feel angry and let down by the force they favor, being private enterprise. Figure that out, ideology be damned and the results would have a lot more weight behind them.

If I rob a person I go to jail, these guys rape a nation and they get away because focus energy is all directed at the FED. Liberals are no use because they only destroy their own hopes politically if they challenge the entire routine, quite out of fear. I think conservatives could find a foothold if they advocated the small guy, by scorning the big guy and the fed.

reply to post by whatukno


If we can not get our duly elected Sheriff's to arrest these scalawag's and usurpers of a Constitutional republic then yes, I do advocate a violent overthrow. The Declaration of Independence, the document that defended the first revolution, made clear that when, and I quote directly:

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

I would prefer that we reign in the unlawful acts of the current usurpers without the use of violence, but I will not advocate peace at any cost when peace at that price means the loss of freedom. How about you? Do you advocate the loss of freedom in order to maintain a democracy not mandated by Constitution? Do you advocate tyranny as long it is an elected one? Just what in God's name do you stand for?

reply to post by Janky Red


Excellent point Janky Red.

If people were to skim some of my posts I feel the Mega Corps are just as bad, if not worse, than the Federal Government.

Break'm up like AT&T was. Monopolies are bad. So is the corporate oligarchy our government has become.

I knew you would sooner or later agree with me. I have a way of growing on folk. You know, the weird cousin or that bad foot fungus.

Whatukno is right though. I have been drinking this evening. That is usually when I get riled up when cussing and discussing.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I would prefer that we reign in the unlawful acts of the current usurpers without the use of violence, but I will not advocate peace at any cost when peace at that price means the loss of freedom. How about you? Do you advocate the loss of freedom in order to maintain a democracy not mandated by Constitution? Do you advocate tyranny as long it is an elected one? Just what in God's name do you stand for?

When it's the people that vote for as you put it these "Scalawags and Usurpers" It makes it quite difficult for me to advocate a violent overthrow of that government. The phrase, "not my problem" comes to mind. I vote in every election, I voice my opinions to my elected officials, I meet up with them when they are in town and hold gatherings. I let my voice be heard. It's hard to qualify them as Usurpers when they are legally and Constitutionally elected. So no I cannot advocate the violent overthrow of the government. Especially when its the minority that wants to violently overthrow that government.

Pick better politicians.

Fact of the matter is, I am looking to run for my local Senate seat here where I live. Why? Because I am sick of how things are run. I do want honesty and accountability in our government. I also think I can do a much better job than the person that currently holds that seat.

Frankly all these anti government threads remind me of a crybaby that looses a game then wants to take the ball and go home.