Patriots don't secede

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

America does NOT have a mixed economy.

geeminetly, what friggin textbook did you get in college?

I noticed you just told some guy to go live in Somalia because you think he hates America. That is really an oddball response to his posts if you ask me. I happen to agree with him on much of what he says. Perhaps you are mistaking a desire to stop the Socialist takeover with some kind of hatred. That is where you are sorely mistaken.
It is time to take it back from those Socialist reformers and bring it back to the original intent of the Founders. Unlike you, I can differentiate between the True America I love and grew up with, and the abuses heaped on it by the Elite.

edit on 23-1-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

You have been brainwashed to hate socialism

You have been brainwashed to hate liberty.

For you up is down and down is up.

That is your condition of being stuck in cognitive dissonance.

reply to post by JuniorBeauchamp

Well, the Globalist Banking Cabal has been telling us what the methods will be.

Drastic global population reduction is one.

A One World Government that is beholding to the Globalists is another.

Do you find it as odd as I do that while the US didn't feel the need to honor one single peace treaty with the American Indian tribes and yet the UN peace treaty is deemed the Supreme Law over all? Its FOREIGN.

We all know that treaty making is authorized by the Constitution, so how can someone consider himself a constitutionalist unless he willingly acknowledges that congress has the authority to ignore some treaties but declare the Ultimate Supremacy of the UN to abolish US/State law and submits to its dictates?

To be honest, Americans missed their best reason for secession when that treaty was signed.

And how can people who are so hostile to Obamacare still call themselves constitutionalists when that abomination passed muster with the Supreme Court as legal under the commerce clause of the Constitution?

When you think about it, its pretty amazing how often people call themselves believers in things that they really aren't, either because they're totally naive or because doing otherwise would be considered a heresy.

Originally posted by therealdemoboy
A country and it's government are not necessarily the same thing.

The first branch of government is "We the People" and when the institutional government oppresses the people with tyranny it is the obligation and duty of the First Branch of Government to dissolve it's bonds with the institutional tyrants.

reply to post by Darkphoenix77

If only all people could just believe what they want to believe and stand for what they want to stand for. Too many seem to fit the "party ideology" and that is the problem. Nobody thinks for themselves these days or has thier own opinions, they let groups of people think for them.

That's what drives me nuts, why CAN'T people think for themselves?

Well, the blame should probably be laid right on the doorstep of the department of education. Group think.

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by JuniorBeauchamp

 

Well, the Globalist Banking Cabal has been telling us what the methods will be.

Drastic global population reduction is one.

A One World Government that is beholding to the Globalists is another.

Do you find it as odd as I do that while the US didn't feel the need to honor one single peace treaty with the American Indian tribes and yet the UN peace treaty is deemed the Supreme Law over all? Its FOREIGN.

Sadly, the Big Brother government we have now was set in place during the Andrew Jackson administration, who was a proponent of big federal government and an imperial presidency, and advocate of manifest destiny that was used then for justification for breaking treaties make with Native Americans.

Once big, top down federalism was set it place it became a struggle between the parties to see who would be in power, and the Constitution began to be trampled underfoot, and now practically completely discarded.

So far, the leftist statists are winning.

We all know that treaty making is authorized by the Constitution, so how can someone consider himself a constitutionalist unless he willingly acknowledges that congress has the authority to ignore some treaties but declare the Ultimate Supremacy of the UN to abolish US/State law and submits to its dictates?

Most in congress simply are not constitutionalists. Most are statists, either on the left or right. And they jump when the Banking Cabal says to.

To be honest, Americans missed their best reason for secession when that treaty was signed.

Could be, but I think the best time is when it becomes so obvious to the masses of government schooled Americans that they have been enslaved to Big Brother government.

And how can people who are so hostile to Obamacare still call themselves constitutionalists when that abomination passed muster with the Supreme Court as legal under the commerce clause of the Constitution?

It's easy. They lie. Politicians lie as a standard practice.

When you think about it, its pretty amazing how often people call themselves believers in things that they really aren't, either because they're totally naive or because doing otherwise would be considered a heresy.

Those in congress, save a few who really are, like Rand Paul, who say they are constitutionalists are lying and they know it.

Would you expect them to tell the truth that they are statists?

The Bible calls those imitators, "wolves in sheep's clothing".

reply to post by JuniorBeauchamp


Liberals and related parties stand for motion, change, the evolution of society, not the same old tired system filled with flaws and clunky software. It will break of its own accord. We just want to upgrade it, trade out the old stuff for the new because that's how evolution works.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are a pretty stagnant pond, and not a very deep one at that. They long for the simple things in life, preferring to buy their way out of problems and take what they want, believing they deserve the best of everything and complaining when they are asked to assist the mortal folk of Earth. They believe the familiar ways are the best ways, that tradition is sacred.

We're a nation composed of nationalities whose former members broke tradition, and for a time, they became part of the greatest free country in the world. But now tradition is tightening its hold again, and we must fight to break free...or we will perish. If our understanding is to grow, then our ideas and our government must grow to reflect that. Growth means change. And that is what liberals stand for. That is the common theme of all liberal ideas.

The liberals are ahead of the curve.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by JuniorBeauchamp

 

Liberals and related parties stand for motion, change, the evolution of society, not the same old tired system filled with flaws and clunky software. It will break of its own accord. We just want to upgrade it, trade out the old stuff for the new because that's how evolution works.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are a pretty stagnant pond, and not a very deep one at that. They long for the simple things in life, preferring to buy their way out of problems and take what they want, believing they deserve the best of everything and complaining when they are asked to assist the mortal folk of Earth. They believe the familiar ways are the best ways, that tradition is sacred.

We're a nation composed of nationalities whose former members broke tradition, and for a time, they became part of the greatest free country in the world. But now tradition is tightening its hold again, and we must fight to break free...or we will perish. If our understanding is to grow, then our ideas and our government must grow to reflect that. Growth means change. And that is what liberals stand for. That is the common theme of all liberal ideas.

The liberals are ahead of the curve.

edit on 23-1-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

That is the kind of dumbed down propagandist lies that government schooled morons are conditioned to believe when the opposite is the case.

Originally posted by JuniorBeauchamp


Sadly, the Big Brother government we have now was set in place during the Andrew Jackson administration, who was a proponent of big federal government and an imperial presidency, and advocate of manifest destiny that was used then for justification for breaking treaties make with Native Americans.

Once big, top down federalism was set it place it became a struggle between the parties to see who would be in power, and the Constitution began to be trampled underfoot, and now practically completely discarded.

While no one would dispute the fact that Jackson was an Indian killing machine, that was not the origination of top down federalism, that happened much earlier.

As for statists, BOTH sides are statist or they wouldn't want hold a statist office that writes the rules. That's the problem, people who want power are exactly the ones who shouldn't be given any. And yes, lying is what they do best. ON BOTH SIDES. Believers are the ones who worry me most.

But you're wrong in saying that most in congress aren't constitutionalists, they may have to massage the hell out of the constitution to squeeze out their bills, but every single law that has ever passed and held up on SC scrutiny falls under the auspices of the commerce clause, the general welfare clause or the necessary and proper clause, not to mention the supremacy clause.

And getting back to Jackson, he threw OUT the bankers and the economy went berserk until he was out of office and the banks weaseled their way back in. There've been a few other presidents who also tried to stop the money masters and died for their trouble, like McKinley, Garfield, Lincoln and Kennedy. And they tried to gun Jackson down, too, but the gun jammed. Funny thing, those lone gun nuts all seem to have the same MO, they don't like people who buck the banks.

And then there's us. We don't buck the banks either. That's where everybody has to go to borrow money. That's where everybody puts their money to keep it "safe". Right?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

If our understanding is to grow, then our ideas and our government must grow to reflect that.

No, if our understanding is to grow, we must pick up a book or two and discover the truth of how the government has grown large enough to swallow us whole.

Originally posted by frazzle

Originally posted by JuniorBeauchamp


Sadly, the Big Brother government we have now was set in place during the Andrew Jackson administration, who was a proponent of big federal government and an imperial presidency, and advocate of manifest destiny that was used then for justification for breaking treaties make with Native Americans.

Once big, top down federalism was set it place it became a struggle between the parties to see who would be in power, and the Constitution began to be trampled underfoot, and now practically completely discarded.

While no one would dispute the fact that Jackson was an Indian killing machine, that was not the origination of top down federalism, that happened much earlier.

To be sure, Jefferson and Madison had to tend with the federalists like Hamilton and others.

The point I was making is the Jackson set the country down the road by leaps and bounds toward big, top down government.

Oddly enough though to his credit, Jackson was staunchly against a central bank.

As for statists, BOTH sides are statist or they wouldn't want hold a statist office that writes the rules. That's the problem, people who want power are exactly the ones who shouldn't be given any. And yes, lying is what they do best.

That's why I don't trust the statists on either side.

Believers are the ones who worry me most.

They are more like brainwashed drones really.

But you're wrong in saying that most in congress aren't constitutionalists, they may have to massage the hell out of the constitution to squeeze out their bills, but every single law that has ever passed and held up on SC scrutiny falls under the auspices of the commerce clause,

The "commerce clause" has been the most abused clause in the Constitution, misinterpreted by statist federal judges hell bent on constitutional revisionism as a "living document" to be misinterpreted any way they see fit on order to further the statist agenda.

the general welfare clause

That clause is in the Preamble and has been abused as much as the commerce clause.

The problem is, they call themselves "constitutionalists" but are revisionists who twist and pervert the Constitution in revisionism to suit their agenda.

They are not strict constructionists who interpret the Constitution in it's original intent. Those who do are the true constitutionalists.

reply to post by JuniorBeauchamp


All told, there were 39 signers of the constitution and for some reason only a few of them get any credit for what went into it and that creates a lot of misunderstandings. Even of the few who do get credit we really don't know much about, other than a few cogent quotes, most of which were never actually put into the constitution and carry no weight in terms of law.

But you mentioned Hamilton and IMO that's who gets full credit for sending the country down the road we're on. Some time ago I posted a thread about a thing called the Buttonwood Agreement which was the beginning of the NYSE (1792), which was a pledge signed by 24 high rollers In New York City to give "preference" only to each other in their business dealings (some things never change).There's not much info available on them and I don't remember the website that had clickable links to each one but Alexander Hamilton's name was hyperlinked beneath each of theirs. If that doesn't give a powerful clue about who's been running this country all along I don't know what would, he was the primo banker's mole within the convention walls.

And even so, if you really study the rest of the signers, most of them were rich elitist snobs. Here's another thread full of info about them that pretty much went down the memory hole and that alone says that most people don't even want to know the true stories of the founders.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

As far as Jackson goes, the people loved him and he could have won another term if he'd wanted to, but he got and still gets a lot of bad press because the bankers and their whores in the media hated him (that's another thing that's never changed. John Adams even created the setition act and threw journalists and editors who criticized him into jail and shut down their newspapers.)

Also, the men who wrote the founding documents were primarily lawyers who would never write a contract with such gaping loopholes and open ended terms as the commerce and general welfare clauses unless they intended them to be used with wild abandon by a succession of lawyer politicians. Just as has been done.

I don't know who came up with the word constructionist, but its hard to misinterpret that the constitution was written so as to be revised and DEconstructed word by word ~ with particular reference to the Bill of Rights which the federalists really didn't want to add at all. It was ANTI federalists like Patrick Henry who demanded the addition of the BoR. We should have listened to them.

Sorry for the diatribe.

reply to post by frazzle

clearly, they did come to an agreement, didn't they ?
when both sides spent 3 months confined in debate, a resolve was reached, was it not ?
anyone who has read the Federalist papers, hopefully read both sides

there is no blaming one side or the other, especially at this point.
none of them created the monster we are dealing with today.

however, there is nothing wrong with attempting to understand their intent.
i totally disagree with your deconstruction comment or we wouldn't be discussing secession.
[perhaps i misunderstood it but as read, how do you figure it was designed to be deconstructed?]

ETA -- any chance you'd explain this statement further ?

the men who wrote the founding documents were primarily lawyers who would never write a contract with such gaping loopholes and open ended terms as the commerce and general welfare clauses unless they intended them to be used with wild abandon by a succession of lawyer politicians. Just as has been done.

it is not the design of the document to be usurped by both lawyers and the USSCs over the years. how do you view 'gaping holes' in the design to reign in government ?

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by frazzle

 

clearly, they did come to an agreement, didn't they ?
when both sides spent 3 months confined in debate, a resolve was reached, was it not ?
anyone who has read the Federalist papers, hopefully read both sides

there is no blaming one side or the other, especially at this point.
none of them created the monster we are dealing with today.

however, there is nothing wrong with attempting to understand their intent.
i totally disagree with your deconstruction comment or we wouldn't be discussing secession.
[perhaps i misunderstood it but as read, how do you figure it was designed to be deconstructed?]

ETA -- any chance you'd explain this statement further ?

the men who wrote the founding documents were primarily lawyers who would never write a contract with such gaping loopholes and open ended terms as the commerce and general welfare clauses unless they intended them to be used with wild abandon by a succession of lawyer politicians. Just as has been done.

it is not the design of the document to be usurped by both lawyers and the USSCs over the years. how do you view 'gaping holes' in the design to reign in government ?

edit on 24-1-2013 by Honor93 because: ETA

I probably wasn't clear enough since the coffee was still brewing when I wrote that post.

But I did put the deconstruction in context with the Bill of Rights, all of which have been deconstructed to one degree or another with the broad interpretations of commerce and welfare (implied powers) and that's the exact reason we're discussing secession now. The federalists DID NOT want those rights enumerated but couldn't get the states to sign on without that promise.

As for coming to an agreement, initially there were 55 delegates of which 39 came to an agreement, the rest walked out of the debates even WITH the promise of a BoR and yes, their accounts should be taken into consideration as well.

www.wepin.com...

ETA: They weren't "confined", very few of the delegates attended all or most of the sessions.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by JuniorBeauchamp

 

Liberals and related parties stand for motion, change, the evolution of society, not the same old tired system filled with flaws and clunky software. It will break of its own accord. We just want to upgrade it, trade out the old stuff for the new because that's how evolution works.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are a pretty stagnant pond, and not a very deep one at that. They long for the simple things in life, preferring to buy their way out of problems and take what they want, believing they deserve the best of everything and complaining when they are asked to assist the mortal folk of Earth. They believe the familiar ways are the best ways, that tradition is sacred.

We're a nation composed of nationalities whose former members broke tradition, and for a time, they became part of the greatest free country in the world. But now tradition is tightening its hold again, and we must fight to break free...or we will perish. If our understanding is to grow, then our ideas and our government must grow to reflect that. Growth means change. And that is what liberals stand for. That is the common theme of all liberal ideas.

The liberals are ahead of the curve.

edit on 23-1-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

That's also what Libertarians stand for. As to wether liberals are ahead of the curve, it depends on which curve your talking about. Both major parties are too entrenched to be effective in any capacity.

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by JuniorBeauchamp

 

All told, there were 39 signers of the constitution and for some reason only a few of them get any credit for what went into it and that creates a lot of misunderstandings.

That is because Madison and Jefferson were the framers, and the rest agreed and consented by signature.

Even of the few who do get credit we really don't know much about

That's not true. We have a large amount of the writings of Madison and Jefferson expounding on the principles the Constitution is founded on, and the reasons why the Constitution was written as it was.

Also, we have the writings of those who demanded the Bill of Rights be included. Look up the "Halifax Resolves", which was pretty much the Bill of Rights, written well before the Constitution.

I don't know who came up with the word constructionist, but its hard to misinterpret that the constitution was written so as to be revised and DEconstructed word by word ~ with particular reference to the Bill of Rights which the federalists really didn't want to add at all. It was ANTI federalists like Patrick Henry who demanded the addition of the BoR. We should have listened to them.

The "revision" process was by the Amendment process, to be ratified by 2/3 of the states.

Big Brother government has been bypassing that process via the federal courts, presidential EOs, and law writing by the alphabet soup agencies for a long time now.

In reality, the Constitution has not really been followed since the early 20th century.

Sorry for the diatribe.

No problem, lovers of liberty tend to be quite passionate about it. I know I am.(wink)

Originally posted by MrBigDave

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by JuniorBeauchamp

 

Liberals and related parties stand for motion, change, the evolution of society, not the same old tired system filled with flaws and clunky software. It will break of its own accord. We just want to upgrade it, trade out the old stuff for the new because that's how evolution works.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are a pretty stagnant pond, and not a very deep one at that. They long for the simple things in life, preferring to buy their way out of problems and take what they want, believing they deserve the best of everything and complaining when they are asked to assist the mortal folk of Earth. They believe the familiar ways are the best ways, that tradition is sacred.

We're a nation composed of nationalities whose former members broke tradition, and for a time, they became part of the greatest free country in the world. But now tradition is tightening its hold again, and we must fight to break free...or we will perish. If our understanding is to grow, then our ideas and our government must grow to reflect that. Growth means change. And that is what liberals stand for. That is the common theme of all liberal ideas.

The liberals are ahead of the curve.

edit on 23-1-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

That's also what Libertarians stand for. As to wether liberals are ahead of the curve, it depends on which curve your talking about. Both major parties are too entrenched to be effective in any capacity.

For starters, the so called "liberals" are not liberals at all, not in the classical definition of liberalism. Those would be libertarians.

The so called "liberals" co-opted the term, when in fact they are elistist statists who despise individual liberty in favor of centralized, Big Government that controls every aspect of people's lives from birth to death.

So when "AfterInfinity" says:

Liberals and related parties stand for motion, change, the evolution of society

He/she makes the fallacious assumption that "motion, change and evolution of society" means something good, when in reality the kind of "motion, change and evolution of society" espoused by these statists posing as "liberals" is totalitarianism in which Big Government controls every aspect of people's lives from birth to death.

It is important to delve deeper past such sound bite bumper sticker slogans and into the meaning that is poured into the words used.

Secession, is actually a misnomer.

We are not really talking about "secession" but Independence.

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 to 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.

It's Independence not secession.

That is because Madison and Jefferson were the framers, and the rest agreed and consented by signature.

We have a large amount of the writings of Madison and Jefferson expounding on the principles the Constitution is founded on, and the reasons why the Constitution was written as it was.

Also, we have the writings of those who demanded the Bill of Rights be included. Look up the "Halifax Resolves", which was pretty much the Bill of Rights, written well before the Constitution.

The "revision" process was by the Amendment process, to be ratified by 2/3 of the states.

Big Brother government has been bypassing that process via the federal courts, presidential EOs, and law writing by the alphabet soup agencies for a long time now.

In reality, the Constitution has not really been followed since the early 20th century.

Wait, what? Jefferson was in France from 1784-1789 throughout the constitutional debates so how could he have been instrumental in authoring it while he was busy dickering with the French over a treaty with Morocco and working out a commercial treaty with France. www.sparknotes.com...

The delegates met between May 25 to September 17, 1787 in Philadelphia during Jefferson's mission in Europe and there were no conference calls or fax machines to make Jefferson's will known or included in the final document other than he wrote letters and he signed it. Same with John Adams and Ben Franklin, they were overseas.

So are you saying Madison wrote the whole thing and all these other guys had nothing to do with it? colonialhall.com...

How representative of them.

The writers of the federalist papers were Madison, Hamilton and John Jay ~ not Jefferson. Basically those writings were a huge sales pitch to the states on how well the system they set up would work. I particularly liked this one by Madison:

It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed? constitution.org...

Been to a law library lately? See how well that worked out?

BTW, the Halifax Resolve was just NC agreeing to agree on separation from England if all the other colonies agreed.

my country right or wrong - that's what got us into this quagmire.

the 2nd amendment:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Patriots wish to re-instate the U.S. Constitution - in other words let freedom ring.

"freedom is tolerance" - Ron Paul

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism"