background image

Friday, September 10, 2010

A pastor wants to do what with what?! Who cares! Seriously? This was the news of the night. It's what I saw on CNN every time I looked up this evening.

I just read Ron Paul's release regarding this nonsense. I was looking for a voice of reason in the storm, but honestly I was a bit taken back by the fact that Dr. Paul sided against the pastor... or at least that is how it looks on the surface. The truth may be in what he didn't say.

Regardless, here are my thoughts and contemplations on what should have been a non-story. In a time when Tea Party and Liberty candidates cannot get decent exposure by the media, they seriously believe that our time should be wasted on a nut exercising his rights to make a fool out of himself?

-=-=-=

The only part I don't get is people giving two bits of a care about what some pastor wants to do with a few copies of the Quran that he bought.

To prove my point, I wouldn't be the least bit offended that someone burned 1,000 copies of the Bible. Want to burn it? Go ahead. It's your own stupidity. I'll still have my copy and millions more will continue to exist.

The only time when book burning is bad is when it is done by the government to prevent the spread of opinions and theories that go against their agenda. Book burning en mass to remove thoughts from the world, including virtual book burning otherwise known as banning. That's the problem to care about.

Where is anyone standing up for this guy's right to express himself as he sees fit? I still, foolishly, I know.... want to believe that in the united States of America we have first amendment rights. If we want to speak out against a war while on tour in France or burn some books or flags to make a political statement, that is our right. Those around us have their right to state their opinion regarding the matter.

However, to blame the future deaths of our troops on a person for upsetting a few people who can't see the true irrelevance of the act is ridiculous. The outrageous comments of our "leaders" in response to something that should not have gotten so much as a head shake truly demonstrates how backwards our society has become.

As a US Navy sailor, I repeatedly stated my resolve that I was in the military to defend Liberty. The phrase, "I may not like what you have to say but I will fight to the death to ensure you have the right to say it" must have been washed out in the last 15 years.

I also find it completely hysterical that our media gives one iota of a damn about moral righteousness. They who are repeatedly guilty of airing prime time shows that belittle religious views of millions of Americans. You can't have it both ways. You cannot be the champions of moral propriety and the entertainers who spend millions producing movies that would last 20 minutes with the curse words removed.

No one has the right, least of all our opinionated, pompous, arrogant media charlatans to decide another man's morals and dictate what he does on his property with his property so long as it does not infringe on the rights of another. Last I checked, burning a few copies of a book you don't agree with doesn't fit into that criteria.

-=-=-=

One parting thought for our feeding frenzy "friends" in the media, "You cannot enjoy freedoms you want denied to everyone else." Chew on that one for a while.

Wednesday, September 08, 2010

Dear Senator

Thanks to the NRDC's misleading ad on facebook, I ended up on their site where they were asking me to take action and write to my senator to condemn their inaction on "comprehensive climate and energy legislation."

So, since they pulled me in under false pretenses, I cleared out their text demanding creation of 2 million clean energy jobs and etc and replaced it with this:
Whereas we need clean energy and the ability to get away from Oil dependence, I do not agree with the Federal Government taking it upon themselves to decide anything in this area as they do not have the Constitutional authority to do so. However, they should make a case to the States to take under consideration what should be done to reduce pollution.

Of course, the repeal of laws making it nigh impossible to create a dam, build a nuclear power plant, or otherwise invest in alternatives to oil would be a step in the right direction.

Increasing taxes on current forms of energy is not an option. In a time when people can barely find enough money to keep their basic needs satisfied where Electric and Gas Energy for the home looks like another rent or mortgage payment, a tax would mean that many low income folks would simply have to do without. Could you imagine living without electricity or the ability to drive? No throwing more taxes on that basic building block of our economic infrastructure would only serve to cripple our country.

Please investigate ways to make it easier for people to bring us electric generation that does not depend on coal or oil and empower the people to develop a car that runs off hydrogen, electricity, and natural gas to help reduce carbon emissions without taxing the entire country into poverty.

Thanks!
Marc

Wednesday, September 01, 2010

Schools believe they have power over parents - sadly so do parents

I have no problem accessing my child's classroom at any moment.....but then I homeschool.

The public schools are the worst plague this country has, spreading lies about our country's system of government and teaching theories that require as much faith as any religion does as fact.

"Trespassing on public property..." when are these idiots going to understand how ridiculous they sound? Sure, we don't want people aimlessly wandering around on a school yard, especially with the worry of possible predators, kidnappers, etc. At the same time, however, how can one trespass on their own property? I you are the parent of a child, you have a right to be there and all you should have to do is check-in and get a visitor badge at most. When school is out it is community property and the community will use it. Vandals, if caught, should be prosecuted. However you can't throw down the gauntlet and shut the school grounds off to access because someone might do something. The school grounds best protection are parents and their kids using the play areas and tracks during off hours as a family.

A school board doesn't have the power to authorize a principal to detain a visitor as they don't have the power to detain a visitor. However, in this new era of Government OVER the people that has been being preached as gospel since the 1950's most people would just laugh if you told them that government cannot create powers out of thin air.

The authoritarian state is growing out of control and as long as they keep the majority believing that they need Democrats or Republicans to "fix it" we will continue to go down the path of servitude to our benevolent government while worshiping at the alter of humanism.

We don't need government at all. Government knows this and fights to hold power and "prove" our need for it with lies, problem creation, and by playing on our social nature to claim its power. It is an abomination of natural order when people claim power over other people and the end result is always the same, killing the people the body in power is charged with protecting.

We need voluntarism where people knowingly give up a bit of their sovereignty to gain benefits. No one should be born into a system where they have no choice to take on the benefits before they know what they are going to give up to get them. One example of that is a toll-road. Sure it isn't perfect, but you only pay the toll if you want to drive on the road. The bottom line is things that people won't willingly volunteer for will die out. Ninety-nine percent of todays government programs would be gone if people were permitted to volunteer for it as most people cannot see the benefit of them. The programs that did survive would be efficient because people would not stay with a program where they were getting less from it than what they were putting into it. But then, that is the argument for why businesses work only in a free market. People vote with their dollars and when a company messes up it fails and gets bought up in pieces by other companies. Government and social markets can keep a failing company or program alive as long as they can steal enough money from the citizens to keep it afloat. BAILOUTS mean anything to you? People voted with their dollars to let GM go out of business, GM wasted tons of money trying to correct that image and when it was still failing government bought it out. We bought a failing car company? Why? Do not get me wrong, I love my Dodge Durango, but I don't see why people believe any company is too big to fail.

Keeping dead companies afloat may keep some jobs for a while, but it doesn't help us address the larger problem as quickly as we could by just returning to a free market . We didn't even actually bail them out. We took a loan, printing more dollars, to give them money to stay in operation. More money in circulation makes it worth less. We all took a pay cut to keep these companies running. We will see that pay cut in the near future as prices rise due to too much currency in circulation. No matter how you dress a problem up it really comes down to the same question, in business. "Team, we are not making enough money to keep operating as we have been. We either have to lay some people off or ask you all to take a percentage pay cut." Either some of us or all of us get affected, no matter how you look at it. However, solving it by throwing money at it and keeping a company that failed running does more damage in the long run. It undermines our confidence in ourselves, it rewards reckless behavior, and it punishes companies that did what they needed to do to stay competitive. In the end that affects everyone - from the competition to the customer. We are all being punished for the misdeeds of a few big companies and banks. That, frankly, makes no sense to me.

When a free market reacts to a depression, like the one we are currently in, it kills what caused the issue, in this case several big businesses would have failed or they would have sold off assets to cover losses. If this happens on a grand scale then we enter a depression. The most significant thing about a depression is that the you lose a lot of jobs. As people lose their jobs other companies begin to feel the loss of customers so they do what they must to survive by lowering prices, finding ways to be more efficient, they might layoff employees or go under as well. Prices do not rise or stay firm during a free market depression. They follow the buyers. In the false markets of today and since FDR prices stay flat or even rise during a recession or depression. This is just one of the reasons why we continue to become worse off as time goes on. The government is not permitting a true market correction. They print more money, create nonsense jobs and make us all suffer far longer than would happen if they got out of the business of regulating market fluctuations. The great depression of the 20's was an almost immediate result of government regulation on the free market. Most people haven't even heard of the great depression of the 1880's because it was permitted to go through correction and society pulled through it, just like all the previous recessions and depressions that had occurred for the centuries prior. Only in the last century have we seen depressions that can affect the economy for decades and that is 100% due to our falsely tampering with the mechanism that only works when we take government out of the equation. The founding fathers knew it, why do we continue to believe that we know better than them? Because our schools have been teaching us we do for the past 60+ years, that is why.

Freedom only works when we teach people what it truly is. Freedom, Liberty, is NOT freedom from desire or need, it is freedom from tyranny. Freedom to make a choice, not freedom to enforce a choice. People cite how cruel the world is and argue that we can't live in freedom because of the dangers to us. We must give up Liberties to be safe. That is complete nonsense. History documents with black and white clarity that giving up Liberty is exactly how you lose safety. When you give the State the power to make you safe, they will keep you safe by killing you, your neighbors, and anyone else they think might be a threat to anyone for any reason. Lynch mobs are exactly what an authoritarian state is. In a free society with an educated population people demand evidence and reason before action.

People complain that government isn't efficient and that things are not progressing in DC. These days things progress too much and pass to fast right through the three bodies of government that were designed to do exactly one thing - fight each other to ensure they did very little to nothing. The federal government was never intended to be our solution factory. It was designed to be a guardian of our Liberty. Some people think adding amendments to the constitution will somehow help. I can think of several amendments that we need. The problem is that the government does not abide by the document now, so why would it start suddenly just because a few amendments got added to it? What is the one thing that our government can't seem to do, but is supposed to do? It is supposed to use our military to defend us. The only way it is go to war is by a vote in the house to make a declaration of war. When was the last time our Congress did that? We have been at war since the end of World War II, without so much as a tiny teeny declaration. Why? Is it really that impossible to get a majority vote to go to war for cause? We can pass unconstitutional laws all day long through the Congress, stripping our basic rights and telling us we owe each other things that no man can claim as a right, yet we can not declare war? Our government is pitiful.

We are living in a democratic anarchy that is cloaked as a democratic republic, but it is supposed to be a republic. The difference between democracy and a republic is that a democracy is about popular vote making law while a republic is about rule by law with a process to amend existing laws by due process. A law cannot be voted out in a Republic. A Republican form of government protects the rights of the minority from the majority. In a democracy the majority can simply vote out the rights of the minority.

I dare you to argue to me that we do not live in anarchy. Prove it. The media uses the battle cry of "That would be anarchy!" to people who speak values of Liberty. They must not know what anarchy means. I will help them. Anarchy: "A state of lawlessness". When the government does not obey the law it was created under then you are in anarchy. This country had law and order long before the Constitution was written. The several states had bodies of government that ensured due process for their citizens. Yet, they were much more free than they are now. Freedom does not equal lawlessness. Do not let the uneducated, indoctrinated minds of our media tell you otherwise. Lawlessness is democracy. Democracy is arbitrary use of money and power without checks and balances. We are in anarchy right now friends and the powers that be will continue to depend on you doubting your rights and believing that they are in charge to push their agenda forward.

When the day comes that a true American Patriot stands up and puts them self in the way of that agenda you will see the true nature of government as they pull out their force and use it. They can't afford for you to see it too overtly, they don't want you to. They hide behind color-of-law and pretend to do things legally.

We cannot win another war for freedom. Our founding father's failed when they chose that path. Freedom can only win by opening people's minds through discussion and debate. The last war for Liberty was lost by the people who did not start the war and who were fighting for freedom as defense. Yes, they lived in a a pitiful state of duplicity - craving freedom while denying it to their brothers. I will not defend that. However, anyone who still believes that the civil war was a civil war or that it was about freeing the slaves obviously hasn't read more than the school book version of history. True history, even that edited by the North, shows what the war was about and accounts the misdeeds of both sides and the way they failed their citizenry while a war between two nations took place. It was a failed revolution, not a civil war.

Just because a founding father said the tree of Liberty must be fed by blood doesn't mean he meant through war. It must be fed by blood, sweat, and tears of those laboring to help others understand how imperfect liberty is and how it is exactly the system the our imperfect human selves need. Communism and Socialism are great theories and beautiful principles based on sharing equally. They are also a complete impossibility as you cannot find a benevolent enough person to run government that only takes exactly their share and ensures everyone else gets the same. Only God can be benevolent and ensure we all get a fair share. All others will pad their share and deduct just a little from the whole. True capitalism permits the end user the power to destroy a corrupt organization. A socialist controlled market allows the government to force people to participate thus ensuring the corrupt organization survives as long as they want to.

Only the people can hold the government accountable. Only we can get them back on the Constitution. I believe that the only way this is ever going to get corrected is for us to work at the local level to take back local governments, then to take back our State governments. Then our State governments will have the power they need to cut off the anarchist federal government and force it to get back to constitutional restrictions. The reconstruction amendment framers knew this and that is why they removed the State power to appoint Senators. This amendment along with the popular vote amendment for the President of the US made this country a democracy. The President of the United States was never intended to be the Leader of the Free World, nor the leader of our country. He is not a King and was never supposed to be. He was put in place to stop the Congress from pushing through unconstitutional laws and to ensure the Supreme Court kept competent judges on it that would keep our Constitutional Republic exactly that.

Instead, we have anarchy. Brought to you by the bi-partisan movement of compromise. Compromise, as most married couples will share, is where you both lose a little in order to both win a little. Whereas in a household the compromise may simply be the husband wanting pizza and the wife gets to pick the toppings, in government that means that Group A wants to pass a bill about opening government documents for review every 10 years, but group B won't vote for it unless they put a Search and Seizure rider on the bill granting the federal government the power to seize an entire crop of corn if a marijuana plant was found growing with it. Group A knows they need at least half of the people from Group B to pass the bill so they say, "Sure." The bill passes and next year the open document law is removed by another bill passing however the search and seizure law remains on the books. Yes, it is only regulatory law, but most courts are convinced that regulatory law is just as powerful as the Constitution so many farmers lose their crops because a punk kid planted a couple marijuana plants on their fields, but no one can prove the kid did it. That is where we are today. Compromise - multiple laws on a bill that have nothing to do with the bill. That is why you had people voting for the Health Care bill - a couple more bucks for a project in their state. Compromise is the tool that was discovered to ram any piece of crap through our federal government. Now we need our States to wakeup and realize they have the right to say, "No!". You may be prompted to say, "We need an ammendment stating 'One bill, one law'!" The problem is the government doesn't obey the law right now, so why would they obey one more silly ammendment?



(republished to fix my spelling error in the title. I r a public education victim!) ;0)

Thursday, June 10, 2010

Strip Search for Ibuprofen found reasonable by US Supreme Court

Amendment 4, Constitution of the United States of America

Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What part of this doesn't apply when a child is in school? According to the US Supreme Court which derives it's power from the same Constitution it ignores, its okay to search a child. According to the Justices of our Supreme Law of the Land:

"...there was no clearly established law finding unconstitutional the strip searching of students under materially similar circumstances from the Supreme Court..."

Really? What is the 4th amendment? A cute paragraph on a rotting piece of paper?

Wrong, supreme court, wrong!

The school does not have the power to search. It only has the power to send a child away from the school. The biggest thing that should have happened was the parents should have been called and Redding should have been sent home for the day.

For the love of all that is holy, we don't permit our schools to spank, why in the world would we grant them the power to individually search? Yes, I know - many schools have metal detectors and some even have bag searches. Ideologically I have issue with that as it does not prevent someone from getting a gun or a knife in the school. It might prevent someone from bringing one just to show their friends how cool they are, but someone with a purpose is not going to be deterred by all the coolest detectors, bells, and/or whistles in the world.

The Supreme Court has also asked the United States Court of Appeals to reconsider other cases similar to this and consider granting "qualified immunity" to the searches in other such cases. "Hey, guys - now that we think strip searches are okay because we do not care about the Constitution anymore, neither should you." If you read the link where I pulled the quote from you'll see that the sixth circuit court cited some case law and squarely told the Supreme Court that they stood by their decision against the people who strip searched a group of 20 students.

What Americans do not realize is that noone has the right to search you without probable cause. A person says they saw you waving a gun around - the police have the right to ask you if you were indeed waving a gun around. At this point they do not have probable cause to search you. If you are acting hostile and confrontational they will probably arrest you and at that point conduct a pat-down search, not because you were accused of having a weapon, but because you gave them probable cause to suspect you may be dangerous. If a police officer sees you waving the gun around he will definitely subdue and search you. Once you get to the jail you will be changing garments and your effects will be cataloged. If you remained level headed during the questioning the police officer would have to get a court order to search you.

Okay, the police officer, as a government representative must follow the Constitution, but does a school official fall under that? No. They are not government officials and the only right they have is to deny access to the school until things can be investigated. Their duty is to protect the other students, and in order to do that they should send a suspected student home - not order up a search.

Of course, that would lead to another news story about a student being sent home for having a subscription drug on them. Still ridiculous in my opinion. Schools are not law enforcement officials and they need to get the idea that they are out of their heads.


Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Note to Alan Grayson

Re: Share Your Health Care Story With Me Inbox (email dated 9/22/2009)

What kind of survey just asks one loaded question? The survey your team setup at http://alangrayson.house.gov/Forms/Form/?ID=473, asks exactly one question. How is that going to garner useful information for you on the issue of health care. I would select "major changes", but that in no way would be the same major changes you may hear from other people.

To me the major change is getting the federal government out of healthcare completely. Remove it's failed ideas of stealing from one class of people to give insurance to another class of people. Give the industry freedom to do what it must so it can have a chance at providing the best service for the best cost to the most customers without constraints. Constraints that force us to use insurance and other "solutions" that actually make healthcare more expensive and less obtainable.



I know when I was a child my Mom spent $20 to take my sister and I into see the doc. That wasn't copay, that was paid in full for services rendered. Now I pay over $100 a visit, just for one child, and that's just if it was just a talk with the doctor. Did the dollar decline 160% since 1980? No. Then why does it cost ten times as much for a typical healthy checkup now? Don't try to make me believe it's because of greedy doctors and unfair insurance. It's because of government involvement and government failing in its role to protect doctors from fraudulent malpractice suits.



Today's doctors have to pander to insurance companies, record keeping that gives the government easier access to patient records than the patient them self, and malpractice insurance that gobbles up a huge chunk of their income. Want to fix healthcare? Get the government out of it!



Restore the Constitution and chain down the government. Consider your oath, good sir - it is to the constitution of this Republic and not to the public opinion surveys.

Thursday, July 09, 2009

Ron Paul and End The Fed

A well written letter by Ron Paul that was also posted by Glenn Beck. Read it for a clearer understanding of how the Federal Reserve is destroying the dollar. As if knowing that it takes $22 to buy what a person could get with $1 in 1913 isn't enough to realize how ridiculous this is... For those who don't know history, the value of currency has never eroded over time consistently and reliably. That did not happen to the US until the Federal Reserve [the central bank] was created. Ever wondered why they don't have those "this is how much milk was in ____" cards going back beyond 1913? It's because milk would go up one year, down for a few, then up a bit, and back down, and if you looked it it over 50 years the price of milk stayed roughly the same. Now, with the federal reserve you can be assured that your savings will be rendered useless over time, and "rich" families of today will have poor descendants in the future. A million dollars was worth 22 times in 1913 what it is worth today. Even a millionaire family of 1913 isn't set today. Just think about that 401k (if you have one) and what it will be worth as the dollar continues to decline at an even faster rate than it has since 1913? How can I be sure of this? It's a certainty because the Federal Reserve has doubled the supply of currency in the last year. That means the dollar will likely be worth 50% of what it was as soon as all that currency makes it out into the normal money supply, thus house prices will seem to rebound as the dollar is further destroyed. Who would say that an annual 22% inflation rate is a good thing? On average that is what the federal reserve has given us. $22 dollars today buys what $1 bought in 1913. That's a loss of 2,100% in less than 100 years. 2008-1913 = 95yrs. 2100%/95yrs = 22.105% per year. Still fooled by the governments reports of 1%, 5%, and 11% (as a high end) inflation for a year? That is a number easily manipulated. In many cases it means as a rate higher than the year before, so 2% could mean it rose 2% more than the previous year, not an actual dollar loss of 2%, but rather 2% worse than the previous year. The government is great at putting spin on things to make them sound better. Why do you think they refer to it as inflation instead of deflation? In reality it is the deflation of the dollar. What is it the inflation of? Inflation just sounds good - like filling a balloon. Kids know what inflating a balloon is - it just sounds like fun! But inflation of the market, thus deflating the value of the dollar is not a good thing. The only thing government is good at is putting lipstick on a pig and convincing us all we need the pig in our living rooms. They are *very* good at it. They have nearly 50% of the nation convinced they can tax the rich and support the poor. It's not possible, nor plausible, but then cartoonists and government are very good at getting people to accept the plausible impossible, just ask Disney, Carl Marx, Adolph Hitler, and Joseph Stalin to name a few. At least Disney was only selling some entertainment - I mean, really, an elephant fly? But then a few too many people have taken his "Dream a dream and follow your heart" concept a bit too far.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Let's see how simply I can put this....

I do not care what a person thinks or believes, as long as they do not force me to give up my freedoms.

:)

Sunday, April 26, 2009

Global Warming....

The democrats invite opposition to speak with Al Gore in Congress, but then after he gets here they tell him to go away....lovely! Read this link to see more of what sparked my entry.


Science is the new religion of our nation, I challenge anyone to state otherwise. We are now to accept Darwinism on faith. That theory offers nothing but a short glimmer of living, with no purpose, no reason, and nothing to strive for. No thanks! I'll stick to faith in God and our Lord Jesus who give us Liberty, Salvation, reason and purpose to our lives, especially our after life. Does that mean that Darwin was an idiot with no idea of what he was speaking of? No! I believe he was correct that we evolve and adapt to our environment, but species jumping? Show me the proof!

Now, with this news, I can rest easily with the reassurance that Al Gore is a fraud.

Science is meant to be only a study of what we can measure - it is a tool thats only purpose is the help us understand our environment. It, by definition, requires no leap of faith - only proof.

Carl Sagan was one of the first big celebrity scientists that shunned actual science and instead sold faith in science. Without conducting one experiment he concluded that a nuclear war would lead to nuclear winter. There was no way to experiment with that theory, yet he sold it to nations as fact. Global warming is another theory unsubstantiated by fact. In reality it exists in opposition to the fact that the world temperatures on average are indeed *not* rising. (unless of course you lie and use September's temperatures for October.)

Global warming is nothing more than an excuse for wealth redistribution which steals from *all* to give to the government. If the ideas of this administration become law, the poorest of our nation will quickly become poorer as they pay the carbon taxes.

Al Gore should be allowed to speak, but he should be considered without credit or merit until he and his ilk can produce one shred of evidence that can be reproduced in a lab. Should we try to find ways to reduce pollution? Hell, yes! Should we do it by forcing people into poverty? No!

Marc

Letter to my Rep...

I sent this to my house representative today...

Rep Grayson, I am glad to see you have decided to co-sponsor HR1207. Auditing the Federal Reserve is truly an important first step in proving that they should not exist at all. Of course, it will be nigh-impossible to find any information that they will be willing to turn over to the House. It is indeed time to fire them and time for this government to wake up and follow the Constitution. If only you had not sold us all out when you sponsored HR 1664. Do you not realize that you laid the foundation for the brother of minimum wage, better to be known as the maximum wage? You should be ashamed for your naive acts against Liberty and Freedom when you sponsored such a terrible bill. I implore you as someone who voted for you, and as an American Patriot, please wake up and take your oath to the Constitution as seriously as I do the one I took. Whenever you introduce or vote for legislation that does not stick within the confines of the Supreme Law of the Land, you are acting as an anarchist. I demand that you honor your oath, and no matter what your party tells you that you do what is truly just for this nation and the workers....limit the Federal government to the powers it was given and get our State and all states back where they belong - in control of their destiny. Moving the tax burden to the rich is not the answer! Placing the tax burden to an all time low is what will work. We need to get the Federal Government back to working on the budget that excise and tariffs can support. Join The People and forever end the insane income tax. I request, demand, and hope that you will go back to the real Democrat Party platform of personal freedom and also find out that only a free market can work, not a socialized one. Doctor visits used to be inexpensive when I was a child, now they are ridiculous thanks to government and private insurances and frivolous malpractice suits. Help us with real change by fighting against the problems and not using the big-government created problems to create more big government. Let me leave you with one last thought: "The government is not here to ensure our financial welfare by borrowing against our future. No one can borrow their way out of debt. Doing nothing is exactly what our Constitution required this anarchist government to do. They think they know better than the founding fathers. The truth is they are the reason we are in this mess and they are just making it worse. Wake up! Government is never the solution it is the disease! It is fire, not warmth. It consumes, it does not create." -Marc Bessent Thank you for your time. I'd appreciate a response and a bit of personal insight in regards to what it is like for you as a Rep. in Washington. Together we can restore America to truly be the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, but not if we are willing to throw away what got us here in trade for a horrible agenda that Bush put into play and Obama is surfing on. The Constitution is not a joke, good sir, and I advise you to do your duty. By The Way, I voted for you to fire the republican that voted for the bailout. Your vote for HR.1 has me ready to vote for anyone that runs against you when your seat comes up. Continue voting for bigger government, more oversight, and less freedom and you will absolutely insure that. Quit spending *MY* money and start reducing the size of government. Thank you, Marc Bessent American Veteran, Patriot, and lover of Liberty

Friday, April 24, 2009

A fun pass time on YouTube - Secession is a Right?

I'm not 100% sure how we got into a big discussion, but I am enjoying it so far. It's amazing how people want to tell you something is impossible, when indeed, nothing is impossible.

Here is the conversation thus far:

ZexMerquise (1 week ago)
+7
Texas is not a state. It's its own country.
Everything is bigger in Texas.
Don't mess with Texas.
They answer to the Republic, Liberty, Justice, and the right to bare arms.
REAL Americans live there. People who send their kids to fight for the freedom of this country.
If any other country took over this country, Texas would be the United State of America.


wittumy (3 days ago)
+1
zex....Texas is a state not its own country as you say. Glenn Beck, Rick Perry, Ted Nugent don't speak for Texans and I find it offensive none of them said a damn word until now and try to get us to believe they are not "party" biased. Mr Beck you backed and still back torture and illegal wire taps because you're scared.....seeing you stand in front of the Alamo which represents brave determination makes me ill.



Then I posted in the next min-conversation where someone called secession "treason".

USConsitution Art 3, Sec 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

If you just leave and start your own government how is that treason? You aren't declaring war, or giving their enemy aid or comfort. Perhaps that's it, then....people think when you leave a union you automatically become it's enemy? That's not the case. I know plenty of failed marriages where the couples are still amicable with each other and work together.

Keep in mind I am not saying I am for secession, but I can understand a State deciding it has had enough with the federal government and doing the only thing it can...threatening to leave. The federal government is nothing without the states the give it life.


olivemike81 (3 days ago)
0
In another segment at the Alamo Beck was practically casting a vote for Texas to succeed. If Texas does suceed, I doubt it will, and we have Civil War 2 I'll be the first one to sign up for the military and crush those traitors. Just like we did the first time.

TotalDeadEnd (3 days ago)
0
It's not that they'll rise up to try to overthrow us. They just want to run things their way without having the government interfere. Kind of like the states that Native American Indians want.

And the word is secede, by the way.

olivemike81 (3 days ago)
0
There are ways to go about this without threatening treason.

mcbluefire (1 day ago)
+1
Secession is not treason. It is a State's last line of defense against a federal government that no longer honors its side of the contract - you know that annoying Constitution thing. The government are the traitors for ignoring the law of the land they swore to uphold.

olivemike81 (1 day ago)
0
We're talking about money here. We're not talking about the federal government stealing state land or something. Obama's plan for the economy may fail but maybe you should see if it fails first before you talk about seceding from America.

mcbluefire (1 day ago)
0
Right....because money is not property and putting a debt against me, my children, and everyone in this country isn't theft? Listen to yourself. Money is what we use to buy property - it is how we are compensated for a labor - our property. The federal government has a rule book to follow - The Constitution. They are not following it and thus are governing in anarchy. Obama's plan isn't knew it is the same failed technique that prolonged the great depression.

olivemike81 (1 day ago)
0
Well actually the truth is when FDR cut back on spending the job loss rate increased. And when FDR took office in 1933 unemployment was at 25%. Just before World War II it was less than 10%.
And it's not like Obama is planning to keep all the money he spent in his plan. The idea is to stimulate the economy and eventually pay off the money spent. Not exactly stealing.

mcbluefire (1 day ago)
0
Government temporary jobs are not a solution to unemployment. If it is such a great bill, why was Congress not given a reasonable amount of time to read a 700+ page bill? It was never read in session. HR1 was about paying off campaign contributers, not helping the economy. Look at the language - most of the money doesn't even have to be (or cannot be) used until 2003 before he starts campaigning again. Look: 200 million for homeless, but 2.8 billion for broadband - that's priorities!

wittumy (1 day ago)
0
mcblue....succession is not a possibility...you're believing idiots like Perry. I bet you also liked Bush didn't you?

mcbluefire (1 day ago)
0
Aye, as a liberty loving Constitutionalist , I just adored all the work that Bush did in dismantling it. Anything is possible, and The People reserve the right to throw off government that no longer works for them and setup a new government that will defend their rights and their way of life. Read the Declaration of Independence sometime and then convince me that the people who fought a war for that right gave it up when they joined the Union voluntarily. Bush was one more bad president.

wittumy (1 day ago)
0
mcblue....let's save time....what in the constitution says they can. I, even with Bush's faults do not have a loss of faith in my government.

mcbluefire (1 day ago)
0
The Constitution limited the federal government, removed a bit of power from he States, not the People. Therefore, since it is not listed as a right removed from the States, it is a right retained by the States. I do not have faith in any -body- that lies repeatedly. Our government is too big to be blindly trusted, period. I don't want secession, I want the government to follow the Supreme Law of the Land.

wittumy (1 day ago)
0
mcblue...you're still not there. Where does it say you can seceed if you don't like what the government is doing.

mcbluefire (1 day ago)
0
Ah, I see... let's play that game. Show me where it says a State cannot, then. No amendment was made following the civil war that specifically removes the right of secession, so I guess that question still isn't settled. I'll stick to the federalist papers view of the Constitution and the 10th amendment which leaves all rights to the States and The People which aren't specifically granted to the feds...thus guaranteeing the right of leaving the union just as they joined it - voluntarily.

wittumy (10 hours ago)
0
mcblue.....you were the one who said they could seceed not I. I've asked for proof and you wish to push the burden of your comment to me.....what "game" am I playing?

mcbluefire (4 hours ago)
0
Wow. I've given you all the proof necessary. Anything not prohibited by the Constitution remains a right. The fact that you can't understand that is amazing to me. Any State can seceed and has the right to do so. This isn't a union any more binding than a marriage. Anything that can be created can be ended. If it helps you sleep better at night you keep believing the socialist pledge of "indivisible", I'll stick with Freedom. Good luck to you.

wittumy (1 hour ago)
0
mcblue....I'm not a socialist anymore than you're a damn fascist so cut the elementary school bullshit. Of course "anything that is created can be ended"....but there is usually a reason/cause. What in the constitution says any little bit of disent can be grounds for a state to seceed...as you suggest? Who decides whether the government is lying...Glen freaking Beck? Give me something in the constitution that identifies states' right to seceed and what is necessary to prove the right to do so.

mcbluefire (20 minutes ago)
0
You get upset too quickly. I didn't call you a socialist, I called the Pledge socialist. Glen Beck is of no significance to me, other than an American who knows something is very wrong as well. When does a State have the right to secede? Why can't you read my posts and see your answer? When The Federal Government No Longer Operates Within The Bounds Of The Constitution. That is when. More to the point whenever the people of that State no longer find it in their best interest to remain.

mcbluefire (17 minutes ago)
0
Forgive me for using elementary school bs, but you are begging me for the obvious answer that is already there and acting like it isn't. We The People run this country and our States, not Us The Government. This country has a government, not the other way around. Realize that secession is a last resort of a State when it has no other choice and quit wasting time trying to prove people don't have that choice. We hope it doesn't come to that - but it is an option.

I am now waiting for his likely reply. It is very confusing to me that we are having a long drawn out argument over something that is up to the states to decide. I sense that we are probably on the same page for most things when it comes to Liberty, except that Wittumy doesn't think we are past the point of no return thus far. I believe it could still be solved on paper, but a miracle would have to occur to get the our federal government back in line with the Constitution and suddenly voting away all the powers they've grabbed. I want that miracle, and I'm praying for it!