CDZ Liberty

[Porter Rockwell]

I don't see where you've done anything of the kind on this thread. But, then again, you never answered me. So, if YOU declare something to be a fallacy, gossip, hearsay or soothsay (sic) then that is like the Word of God and you win any "argument?"

If that's the case, I'm glad this isn't an argument board. This is a discussion board. Was that attitude and those repetitive posts responsible for that vacation the mods gave you recently?

You only have an ad hominem, which is a fallacy and useless for Truth (value) purposes.

You are welcome to re-phrase your question so it is more cogent.

What bumbling idiocy! A question is not an ad hominem or a fallacy. You're getting back to the same trolling that you got banned the last time. We can quit having any kind of discourse if you're going to hurl accusations instead of answering any questions.

Where is your more cogent argument or question?

I keep asking and you keep deflecting.

Keep asking what?

Read the thread. I'm not going to do it for you.

 

[Mac1958]

Liberty does not lie on a continuum.

Could you provide a couple of examples in which your liberty is damaged or threatened?
.

1) The government tells an employer who they can and cannot hire. Since the employer starts a business to make money, not to provide the public with a job, he / she owns the job they create and should be able to give it to whomever they want. The Right to own private property is a hallmark of our Republic.

2) The government requires a background check to buy a weapon and / or they ban certain kinds or types of weapons for the public. The Right to self defense is one of the first and most important principles of our Republic; the Right of the whole people cannot be infringed and that Right is preexisted before the Constitution was written or the government formed

3) Taxing a man's labor is immoral, unconstitutional, illegal, unnecessary, unconscionable, and indefensible. The 16th Amendment is a plank out of the Communist Manifesto

I could keep going, but those are the basic ones. Those I list because they have been litigated and when the courts could not side with Liberty, they chose to create new law (as they call it) and legislated from the bench when that is NOT within their constitutional authority.

In EVERY instance listed, there is much better and constitutional way of achieving whatever result that our law was changed to accomplish.

Great, thanks. Based on those answers, this is what I mean by "liberty exists on a continuum":

1) The government tells an employer who they can and cannot hire.
So a government may place sets of hiring regulations and controls that might be more or less draconian. Those regulations then exist on a spectrum, or continuum.

2) The government requires a background check to buy a weapon and / or they ban certain kinds or types of weapons for the public.
The government pay place 3 or 5 or 10 new restrictions on background checks, or increase the number of types of weapons that are regulated. That lies along a continuum.

3) Taxing a man's labor is immoral, unconstitutional, illegal, unnecessary, unconscionable, and indefensible.
The government may incrementally increase the marginal tax rate of that worker, or reduce any number of deductions or credit. That number lies along a continuum.

So the level of the government's involvement can be increased or decreased. It's a matter of degree. On the Left/Liberal, Right/Conservative continuum, we move along the axis based on the degree to which government is encroaching on what you call liberty. It's not all liberty or no liberty.
.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

But i'll play anyways

I read the PA when it came out, and was fairly upset

Few in Congress changed their votes during the sunsetting of it

Now nobody can put a dent in it

To me, America turned the corner into a police state with the PA

A serious loss of 'liberty', at least by my metric

There is no recourse, nothing is going to turn it around, and if i make noise i'm branded lefty, liberal, etc etc

Is there a 90 odd yr old German citizen in the house? Maybe s/he'd understand....

~S~

A lot of us Conservatives opposed the Patriot Act.

It was the PA that provided the mechanism for the filthy Democrats in the Obama Administration to spy on Trump.

We warned that things like that would happen.

It was a Tea Party Republican that introduced both the so - called "Patriot Act" and the REAL ID Act.

Society is so far removed from considering the experience of those who preceded them that it is hard to extrapolate the truth. But, the fact is, the Democrats are beginning to sound more and more like Republicans from the 1970s and 1980s while the right is taking up more and more of the issues that were championed by the left.

Trump is actually a Democrat which explains why he was able to attack the Constitution on an almost daily basis and get away with it. I can't tell you what is really going on in the world of politics, but it isn't about Trump. While you're being distracted, our Liberties are being flushed down the toilet and if we don't get serious, they will be Gone With the Wind.

I am a real Conservative that believes in individual freedom and non interventionism. I never supported the Patriot Act or the invasion of Iraq.

I can't speak for other people that call themselves Conservatives but support Liberal ideas.

I want you to bear this in mind as you read these paragraphs that the mind is like a parachute. It only works when it's open.

The most glaring example of the right / "conservatives" and a real constitutionalist is in Trump's signature issue: the wall. NO person who believes in the fundamental principles upon which this Republic rests can support the wall. Either Liberty is an unalienable Right or it is not. I heard from one poster and his passing thought about a "meritocracy." I read the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the United States, failing to see the concept much less the word.

When Thomas Jefferson penned the words to the Declaration of Independence, there were no citizens of the United States. Adding insult to injury, despite the fact that within months of the ratification of the United States Constitution and our Congress having fulfilled their only duty relative to foreigners, we continued to allow people to come into the United States from all over the world with no arbitrary quotas. And, as a matter of fact, the only people who could become citizens were free white people.

The facts are that all of the founders / framers were dead and in their graves before the United States Supreme Court took it upon themselves to grant Congress "plenary powers" over immigration. The Rule of Law is that the states had control over which foreigners came and went - more importantly stayed within their respective states. So, the United States Supreme Court overstepped their authority and legislated from the bench. THAT is unconstitutional.

Usually, when I get that far in the conversation, the conservatives are pulling their hair out by the roots and doing that Pavlovian conditioned response: "he's for open borders." OMG. Really? Here are people who have been so thoroughly conditioned that they cannot think beyond this point. So, let me make my point to you:

There was a time in this country when we understood the concept of Liberty. We practiced personal responsibility. I can give you an anecdotal story from my past to illustrate the concept:

My parents went from the north when I was a child and then to California and then to Georgia when the riots in Watts began. So, I spent several years in Georgia before becoming a teen. From there, I went to Sevierville, Tennessee where my mother was born and raised. Although there were many signs up, I couldn't get a dollar an hour job if I had two dollars an hour to buy it with. My uncle told me to apply at Cherokee Textile Mills where I had previously applied TWICE. He said to tell them he sent me and what relation we were. Within ten minutes of completing the application, we were discussing my position and pay.

If you weren't from there, nobody wanted to hire you. That accomplished the same thing the wall lobby wants to accomplish - or at least that is what I've been able to extrapolate from what they've said. Trusting a foreign country to tell us the good guys from the bad is naive. So, I do applaud Trump's Executive Orders to keep foreigners out whose government is a sponsor of terrorism and / or has declared Holy War against the United States.

The moral here is that when we were left to act in our own best interests; when employers got to hire whomever they wanted and when people did business with those they chose to do business with, we had the America that some think made America great. We did not need the wall and the peripheral laws that spring up which supposedly help enforce anti-immigration laws (Constitution Free Zone, National ID / REAL ID Act, etc.) We made the America we wanted of our own free will, not by force. FWIW, my complaint is more about those peripheral laws than the wall itself. Still one does not exist without the other. Maybe the power brokers who finance the talking points have another agenda in mind and the masses haven't connected the dots. Be that as it may, if you don't subscribe to the religion of the wall, you are not a conservative. You might, however, be a constitutionalist. You can't be both.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Liberty does not lie on a continuum.

Could you provide a couple of examples in which your liberty is damaged or threatened?
.

1) The government tells an employer who they can and cannot hire. Since the employer starts a business to make money, not to provide the public with a job, he / she owns the job they create and should be able to give it to whomever they want. The Right to own private property is a hallmark of our Republic.

2) The government requires a background check to buy a weapon and / or they ban certain kinds or types of weapons for the public. The Right to self defense is one of the first and most important principles of our Republic; the Right of the whole people cannot be infringed and that Right is preexisted before the Constitution was written or the government formed

3) Taxing a man's labor is immoral, unconstitutional, illegal, unnecessary, unconscionable, and indefensible. The 16th Amendment is a plank out of the Communist Manifesto

I could keep going, but those are the basic ones. Those I list because they have been litigated and when the courts could not side with Liberty, they chose to create new law (as they call it) and legislated from the bench when that is NOT within their constitutional authority.

In EVERY instance listed, there is much better and constitutional way of achieving whatever result that our law was changed to accomplish.

Great, thanks. Based on those answers, this is what I mean by "liberty exists on a continuum":

1) The government tells an employer who they can and cannot hire.
So a government may place sets of hiring regulations and controls that might be more or less draconian. Those regulations then exist on a spectrum, or continuum.

2) The government requires a background check to buy a weapon and / or they ban certain kinds or types of weapons for the public.
The government pay place 3 or 5 or 10 new restrictions on background checks, or increase the number of types of weapons that are regulated. That lies along a continuum.

3) Taxing a man's labor is immoral, unconstitutional, illegal, unnecessary, unconscionable, and indefensible.
The government may incrementally increase the marginal tax rate of that worker, or reduce any number of deductions or credit. That number lies along a continuum.

So the level of the government's involvement can be increased or decreased. It's a matter of degree. On the Left/Liberal, Right/Conservative continuum, we move along the axis based on the degree to which government is encroaching on what you call liberty. It's not all liberty or no liberty.
.

In your scenario, that would be correct. But, I believe in Liberty. I support the idea that no matter how much - or little government involvement on those issues, it is unconstitutional.

I do not believe that the government has ANY business telling private companies who they can and cannot hire.

I do not believe that the government has the authority to ban any weapon NOR violate my Fourth Amendment Right by presuming I'm a criminal just because I choose to own a firearm.

If a person revoked their Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops, "Social Security Number," and removed themselves from the system, they would be liable for ZERO tax on their labor.

If we accept all you've said, you are right. My point is that none of it should exist in the first place. You pick the issue and I'll give you a constitutional solution that better addresses your concern.

 

[Mac1958]

Liberty does not lie on a continuum.

Could you provide a couple of examples in which your liberty is damaged or threatened?
.

1) The government tells an employer who they can and cannot hire. Since the employer starts a business to make money, not to provide the public with a job, he / she owns the job they create and should be able to give it to whomever they want. The Right to own private property is a hallmark of our Republic.

2) The government requires a background check to buy a weapon and / or they ban certain kinds or types of weapons for the public. The Right to self defense is one of the first and most important principles of our Republic; the Right of the whole people cannot be infringed and that Right is preexisted before the Constitution was written or the government formed

3) Taxing a man's labor is immoral, unconstitutional, illegal, unnecessary, unconscionable, and indefensible. The 16th Amendment is a plank out of the Communist Manifesto

I could keep going, but those are the basic ones. Those I list because they have been litigated and when the courts could not side with Liberty, they chose to create new law (as they call it) and legislated from the bench when that is NOT within their constitutional authority.

In EVERY instance listed, there is much better and constitutional way of achieving whatever result that our law was changed to accomplish.

Great, thanks. Based on those answers, this is what I mean by "liberty exists on a continuum":

1) The government tells an employer who they can and cannot hire.
So a government may place sets of hiring regulations and controls that might be more or less draconian. Those regulations then exist on a spectrum, or continuum.

2) The government requires a background check to buy a weapon and / or they ban certain kinds or types of weapons for the public.
The government pay place 3 or 5 or 10 new restrictions on background checks, or increase the number of types of weapons that are regulated. That lies along a continuum.

3) Taxing a man's labor is immoral, unconstitutional, illegal, unnecessary, unconscionable, and indefensible.
The government may incrementally increase the marginal tax rate of that worker, or reduce any number of deductions or credit. That number lies along a continuum.

So the level of the government's involvement can be increased or decreased. It's a matter of degree. On the Left/Liberal, Right/Conservative continuum, we move along the axis based on the degree to which government is encroaching on what you call liberty. It's not all liberty or no liberty.
.

In your scenario, that would be correct. But, I believe in Liberty. I support the idea that no matter how much - or little government involvement on those issues, it is unconstitutional.

I do not believe that the government has ANY business telling private companies who they can and cannot hire.

I do not believe that the government has the authority to ban any weapon NOR violate my Fourth Amendment Right by presuming I'm a criminal just because I choose to own a firearm.

If a person revoked their Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops, "Social Security Number," and removed themselves from the system, they would be liable for ZERO tax on their labor.

If we accept all you've said, you are right. My point is that none of it should exist in the first place. You pick the issue and I'll give you a constitutional solution that better addresses your concern.

That's essentially strict libertarian/constitutionalist thought, and that's fine with me. Since we're clearly not going to go in that direction, it's fine as theory or as a thought exercise. But it simply isn't going to happen. We're not going to approach governance like that.

My assumption is that the point is to advocate in that direction as much as possible in an attempt to at least influence public policy. That's just not the way I approach problems or issues. I think the best ideas ultimately come not from purity and dogma, but from collaboration and innovation. Ironically, like our Constitution. Purity and dogma can be an element of the process, but not the end result.
.

 

[Natural Citizen]

It was a Tea Party Republican that introduced both the so - called "Patriot Act" and the REAL ID Act.

Tea Party got hijacked by the establishment neocons a long time ago.

Ron Paul is the father of the Tea Party. I'm sure you're aware of his thoughts on both of those Acts.

By the way. While this impeachment thing is going on, they're gonna put the Patriot Act on steroids. Bad news coming for the electorate. Now they're gonna go after us all for crimes we haven't committed. The Surge, Trump called it, I believe.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Liberty does not lie on a continuum.

Could you provide a couple of examples in which your liberty is damaged or threatened?
.

1) The government tells an employer who they can and cannot hire. Since the employer starts a business to make money, not to provide the public with a job, he / she owns the job they create and should be able to give it to whomever they want. The Right to own private property is a hallmark of our Republic.

2) The government requires a background check to buy a weapon and / or they ban certain kinds or types of weapons for the public. The Right to self defense is one of the first and most important principles of our Republic; the Right of the whole people cannot be infringed and that Right is preexisted before the Constitution was written or the government formed

3) Taxing a man's labor is immoral, unconstitutional, illegal, unnecessary, unconscionable, and indefensible. The 16th Amendment is a plank out of the Communist Manifesto

I could keep going, but those are the basic ones. Those I list because they have been litigated and when the courts could not side with Liberty, they chose to create new law (as they call it) and legislated from the bench when that is NOT within their constitutional authority.

In EVERY instance listed, there is much better and constitutional way of achieving whatever result that our law was changed to accomplish.

Great, thanks. Based on those answers, this is what I mean by "liberty exists on a continuum":

1) The government tells an employer who they can and cannot hire.
So a government may place sets of hiring regulations and controls that might be more or less draconian. Those regulations then exist on a spectrum, or continuum.

2) The government requires a background check to buy a weapon and / or they ban certain kinds or types of weapons for the public.
The government pay place 3 or 5 or 10 new restrictions on background checks, or increase the number of types of weapons that are regulated. That lies along a continuum.

3) Taxing a man's labor is immoral, unconstitutional, illegal, unnecessary, unconscionable, and indefensible.
The government may incrementally increase the marginal tax rate of that worker, or reduce any number of deductions or credit. That number lies along a continuum.

So the level of the government's involvement can be increased or decreased. It's a matter of degree. On the Left/Liberal, Right/Conservative continuum, we move along the axis based on the degree to which government is encroaching on what you call liberty. It's not all liberty or no liberty.
.

In your scenario, that would be correct. But, I believe in Liberty. I support the idea that no matter how much - or little government involvement on those issues, it is unconstitutional.

I do not believe that the government has ANY business telling private companies who they can and cannot hire.

I do not believe that the government has the authority to ban any weapon NOR violate my Fourth Amendment Right by presuming I'm a criminal just because I choose to own a firearm.

If a person revoked their Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops, "Social Security Number," and removed themselves from the system, they would be liable for ZERO tax on their labor.

If we accept all you've said, you are right. My point is that none of it should exist in the first place. You pick the issue and I'll give you a constitutional solution that better addresses your concern.

That's essentially strict libertarian/constitutionalist thought, and that's fine with me. Since we're clearly not going to go in that direction, it's fine as theory or as a thought exercise. But it simply isn't going to happen. We're not going to approach governance like that.

My assumption is that the point is to advocate in that direction as much as possible in an attempt to at least influence public policy. That's just not the way I approach problems or issues. I think the best ideas ultimately come not from purity and dogma, but from collaboration and innovation. Ironically, like our Constitution. Purity and dogma can be an element of the process, but not the end result.
.

Thomas Jefferson once said that:

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

Jefferson was right and history is cyclical. As I see it, we are in the bondage stage of history as we've gone as far as possible and Liberty exists only as an idea, no longer a practice as it was during the lives of the founders and framers. Here is Tytler's Cycle of History:

Bondage
Spiritual Faith
Courage
Liberty
Abundance
Selfishness
Complacency
Apathy
Dependence
Then starting over with Bondage

The Tytler Cycle | Common Sense Government

The tyranny and oppression were incremental. We have moved the third world into the White House where they occupy both Houses of Congress and have a substantial influence in the United States Supreme Court. We are not going to vote our way back to peace, prosperity, Freedom and Liberty.

What we're dealing with are political extremists trying to exist in a subtle form of dictatorship. For example, the anti-gun lobby wants gun control. They use the statistics to whip up support for banning firearms, but if you introduce any idea that is not about gun control, they will not give you the time of day. They don't care about saving lives. As a matter of fact, I asked one poster on another board what he had done to save lives other than protest guns. He complained to the mods and tried to get me banned. So, if I put a proposal on the table (which I have) and it would stop 90 percent of all mass shootings without raising taxes; without creating a new bureaucracy; without any type of gun control, why would the public not hear it out and try it?

We've been brainwashed to believe that only gun control provides the answer and factually, it does not.

When I approached the right and said there are better ways to put Americans to work and turn America into a third world nation, unless that solution involves the building of a wall, they are going to call you a liberal, "open borders" type, and treat you worse than an actual enemy.

Sadly, your way isn't going to work either. It's an option that I've been employing for years, but it's about as effective as a eunuch in a brothel.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

It was a Tea Party Republican that introduced both the so - called "Patriot Act" and the REAL ID Act.

Tea Party got hijacked by the establishment neocons a long time ago.

Ron Paul is the father of the Tea Party. I'm sure you're aware of his thoughts on both of those Acts.

By the way. While this impeachment thing is going on, they're gonna put the Patriot Act on steroids. Bad news coming for the electorate. Now they're gonna go after us all for crimes we haven't committed. The Surge, Trump called it, I believe.

I fully supported Ron Paul. There was a discussion board that I was led to believe, at the time, was connected to Ron Paul directly. When I presented the facts of how they were being played by both socialists and National Socialists, I became persona non grata on that board.

I don't know if Ron Paul is or ever was connected to that discussion board. What I do know is that in order for the nutty wall idea to succeed, we will have to gut most of the Constitution. The fact is, the people connected to sites like the aforementioned will accept ANY infringement on their constitutional Rights in order to get the wall built. They themselves have told me that in open debates on discussion boards. If others don't agree with them, they are not participating on conservative and Tea Party sites.

I want to ask you something rather rhetorical that you don't have to answer in open forum, but feel free to do so. Don't you think that if a substantial number of the people in the Tea Party were business owners and they were not obligated to hire X number of Muslims, Y number of "minority races" and Z number of women / LGBTQP types that a pretext for a wall would even exist?

 

[sartre play]

Thank you Porter R, so pleased to see people reply with thoughtful information. only a few slipped down into personal insults. Have my own opinion but my 14 years of school did not focus on the Constitution or a start on a law degree, that may be one of our problems, seems that new people becoming citizens can answer more questions correctly than those of us born here, because they are required too understand. While we can pick & choice what ever supports our personal view and never be required to view the whole of articles set forth in the Constitution. or seek a fuller understanding.

 

[anynameyouwish]

Today I found myself locked out of a thread here after a poster made a false accusation about me. It would have been inappropriate to change the topic anyway, so what this board needs is a thread about Liberty. Maybe that is an issue we should address for those who have the courage to discuss it. The Declaration of Independence states:

"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."

Notice that I bolded some words because we have to discuss them. But first, Thomas Jefferson (who penned those words) said that the Declaration of Independence is "The Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man." So, let's define Liberty:

"Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons." (Black's Law Dictionary - Black's is the most authoritative legal dictionary within the legal community)

What is LIBERTY? definition of LIBERTY (Black's Law Dictionary)

America was founded on this presupposition that a Creator, a God (whomever each of us deems that to be) bestowed upon each person, at birth, unalienable Rights. Among those Rights is the Right of Liberty. Unfortunately, government and the English language make things almost impossible to understand so government grants privileges that they call "rights," but they are still privileges in my opinion since you have to ask for permission before you can get them. What government gives, government can withhold and even take away.

Unalienable Rights, being given by a Creator (if you believe in God) OR expressed in a state of being are inherent, absolute, natural, irrevocable and above the reach of government. I'd like to give you a couple of court rulings to illustrate the depth of these unalienable Rights:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted..." BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

If I have your attention and if this generates any interest, I'd like to explore this since both the left and right; conservative and liberal; Democrat and Republican appear to be after one group or another's Rights.

Anyone who thinks that NONchristians do NOT have rights simply because they are NONchristian doesn't understand what America means.

I don't believe in ANY god and I have exactly the same rights you do.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Thank you Porter R, so pleased to see people reply with thoughtful information. only a few slipped down into personal insults. Have my own opinion but my 14 years of school did not focus on the Constitution or a start on a law degree, that may be one of our problems, seems that new people becoming citizens can answer more questions correctly than those of us born here, because they are required too understand. While we can pick & choice what ever supports our personal view and never be required to view the whole of articles set forth in the Constitution. or seek a fuller understanding.

I tried to be factual without any insults. I worked hard in the movement, spending tens of thousands of dollars of my own money, putting my life on the line and sacrificing family relationships trying to do the right thing.

When the wall idea came along and the media focused on that, the entire right abandoned every post save of that related to the wall. We nearly defeated the IRS, repealing the income tax and the 16th Amendment. They would have been repealed had it not been for an abandonment of the issue (and we had it won.) The National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify system saved the income tax AND it put teeth into the womb to the tomb surveillance necessary to sustain the POLICE STATE. That will be the legislation used to track you and confiscate your weapons over the next two election cycles.

With the Democrats / liberals / left, it is no insult. They cannot say Republican Form of Government and / or unalienable Rights. Try it some time. They hate, loathe and despise every principle the framers stood for. Language is as much a weapon as a firearm. So, the liberals (especially in the courts) simply design a new language. That's just the way it is. I'm not intending to be insulting or unfair.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Today I found myself locked out of a thread here after a poster made a false accusation about me. It would have been inappropriate to change the topic anyway, so what this board needs is a thread about Liberty. Maybe that is an issue we should address for those who have the courage to discuss it. The Declaration of Independence states:

"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."

Notice that I bolded some words because we have to discuss them. But first, Thomas Jefferson (who penned those words) said that the Declaration of Independence is "The Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man." So, let's define Liberty:

"Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons." (Black's Law Dictionary - Black's is the most authoritative legal dictionary within the legal community)

What is LIBERTY? definition of LIBERTY (Black's Law Dictionary)

America was founded on this presupposition that a Creator, a God (whomever each of us deems that to be) bestowed upon each person, at birth, unalienable Rights. Among those Rights is the Right of Liberty. Unfortunately, government and the English language make things almost impossible to understand so government grants privileges that they call "rights," but they are still privileges in my opinion since you have to ask for permission before you can get them. What government gives, government can withhold and even take away.

Unalienable Rights, being given by a Creator (if you believe in God) OR expressed in a state of being are inherent, absolute, natural, irrevocable and above the reach of government. I'd like to give you a couple of court rulings to illustrate the depth of these unalienable Rights:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted..." BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

If I have your attention and if this generates any interest, I'd like to explore this since both the left and right; conservative and liberal; Democrat and Republican appear to be after one group or another's Rights.

Anyone who thinks that NONchristians do NOT have rights simply because they are NONchristian doesn't understand what America means.

I don't believe in ANY god and I have exactly the same rights you do.

What have I said in any post here or anywhere else that leads you to believe that I have not argued the same points? Have I not stated that the right has conflated citizenship with Liberty? Did I not state that when Thomas Jefferson penned the words in the Declaration of Independence (which he also referred to as the Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man) stating that Liberty is an unalienable Right, there were no citizens of the United States?

Are you sure you've read this thread?

 

[Syriusly]

But i'll play anyways

I read the PA when it came out, and was fairly upset

Few in Congress changed their votes during the sunsetting of it

Now nobody can put a dent in it

To me, America turned the corner into a police state with the PA

A serious loss of 'liberty', at least by my metric

There is no recourse, nothing is going to turn it around, and if i make noise i'm branded lefty, liberal, etc etc

Is there a 90 odd yr old German citizen in the house? Maybe s/he'd understand....

~S~

A lot of us Conservatives opposed the Patriot Act.

It was the PA that provided the mechanism for the filthy Democrats in the Obama Administration to spy on Trump.

We warned that things like that would happen.

It was a Tea Party Republican that introduced both the so - called "Patriot Act" and the REAL ID Act.

Society is so far removed from considering the experience of those who preceded them that it is hard to extrapolate the truth. But, the fact is, the Democrats are beginning to sound more and more like Republicans from the 1970s and 1980s while the right is taking up more and more of the issues that were championed by the left.

Trump is actually a Democrat which explains why he was able to attack the Constitution on an almost daily basis and get away with it. I can't tell you what is really going on in the world of politics, but it isn't about Trump. While you're being distracted, our Liberties are being flushed down the toilet and if we don't get serious, they will be Gone With the Wind.

I am a real Conservative that believes in individual freedom and non interventionism. I never supported the Patriot Act or the invasion of Iraq.

I can't speak for other people that call themselves Conservatives but support Liberal ideas.

I want you to bear this in mind as you read these paragraphs that the mind is like a parachute. It only works when it's open.

The most glaring example of the right / "conservatives" and a real constitutionalist is in Trump's signature issue: the wall. NO person who believes in the fundamental principles upon which this Republic rests can support the wall. Either Liberty is an unalienable Right or it is not. I heard from one poster and his passing thought about a "meritocracy." I read the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the United States, failing to see the concept much less the word.

When Thomas Jefferson penned the words to the Declaration of Independence, there were no citizens of the United States. Adding insult to injury, despite the fact that within months of the ratification of the United States Constitution and our Congress having fulfilled their only duty relative to foreigners, we continued to allow people to come into the United States from all over the world with no arbitrary quotas. And, as a matter of fact, the only people who could become citizens were free white people.

The facts are that all of the founders / framers were dead and in their graves before the United States Supreme Court took it upon themselves to grant Congress "plenary powers" over immigration. The Rule of Law is that the states had control over which foreigners came and went - more importantly stayed within their respective states. So, the United States Supreme Court overstepped their authority and legislated from the bench. THAT is unconstitutional.

Usually, when I get that far in the conversation, the conservatives are pulling their hair out by the roots and doing that Pavlovian conditioned response: "he's for open borders." OMG. Really? Here are people who have been so thoroughly conditioned that they cannot think beyond this point. So, let me make my point to you:

There was a time in this country when we understood the concept of Liberty. We practiced personal responsibility. I can give you an anecdotal story from my past to illustrate the concept:

My parents went from the north when I was a child and then to California and then to Georgia when the riots in Watts began. So, I spent several years in Georgia before becoming a teen. From there, I went to Sevierville, Tennessee where my mother was born and raised. Although there were many signs up, I couldn't get a dollar an hour job if I had two dollars an hour to buy it with. My uncle told me to apply at Cherokee Textile Mills where I had previously applied TWICE. He said to tell them he sent me and what relation we were. Within ten minutes of completing the application, we were discussing my position and pay.

If you weren't from there, nobody wanted to hire you. That accomplished the same thing the wall lobby wants to accomplish - or at least that is what I've been able to extrapolate from what they've said. Trusting a foreign country to tell us the good guys from the bad is naive. So, I do applaud Trump's Executive Orders to keep foreigners out whose government is a sponsor of terrorism and / or has declared Holy War against the United States.

The moral here is that when we were left to act in our own best interests; when employers got to hire whomever they wanted and when people did business with those they chose to do business with, we had the America that some think made America great. We did not need the wall and the peripheral laws that spring up which supposedly help enforce anti-immigration laws (Constitution Free Zone, National ID / REAL ID Act, etc.) We made the America we wanted of our own free will, not by force. FWIW, my complaint is more about those peripheral laws than the wall itself. Still one does not exist without the other. Maybe the power brokers who finance the talking points have another agenda in mind and the masses haven't connected the dots. Be that as it may, if you don't subscribe to the religion of the wall, you are not a conservative. You might, however, be a constitutionalist. You can't be both.

Interesting read.

I am curious to your take on monopolies and TR's trust busting.
Along with the formation of union's.

I would presume that you have no issue with the formation of union's, based upon your view on liberty from government intrusion.
But companies used both private armies and government armies to put down labor movements before the laws changed.

 

[Flash]

But i'll play anyways

I read the PA when it came out, and was fairly upset

Few in Congress changed their votes during the sunsetting of it

Now nobody can put a dent in it

To me, America turned the corner into a police state with the PA

A serious loss of 'liberty', at least by my metric

There is no recourse, nothing is going to turn it around, and if i make noise i'm branded lefty, liberal, etc etc

Is there a 90 odd yr old German citizen in the house? Maybe s/he'd understand....

~S~

A lot of us Conservatives opposed the Patriot Act.

It was the PA that provided the mechanism for the filthy Democrats in the Obama Administration to spy on Trump.

We warned that things like that would happen.

It was a Tea Party Republican that introduced both the so - called "Patriot Act" and the REAL ID Act.

Society is so far removed from considering the experience of those who preceded them that it is hard to extrapolate the truth. But, the fact is, the Democrats are beginning to sound more and more like Republicans from the 1970s and 1980s while the right is taking up more and more of the issues that were championed by the left.

Trump is actually a Democrat which explains why he was able to attack the Constitution on an almost daily basis and get away with it. I can't tell you what is really going on in the world of politics, but it isn't about Trump. While you're being distracted, our Liberties are being flushed down the toilet and if we don't get serious, they will be Gone With the Wind.

I am a real Conservative that believes in individual freedom and non interventionism. I never supported the Patriot Act or the invasion of Iraq.

I can't speak for other people that call themselves Conservatives but support Liberal ideas.

I want you to bear this in mind as you read these paragraphs that the mind is like a parachute. It only works when it's open.

The most glaring example of the right / "conservatives" and a real constitutionalist is in Trump's signature issue: the wall. NO person who believes in the fundamental principles upon which this Republic rests can support the wall. Either Liberty is an unalienable Right or it is not. I heard from one poster and his passing thought about a "meritocracy." I read the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the United States, failing to see the concept much less the word.

When Thomas Jefferson penned the words to the Declaration of Independence, there were no citizens of the United States. Adding insult to injury, despite the fact that within months of the ratification of the United States Constitution and our Congress having fulfilled their only duty relative to foreigners, we continued to allow people to come into the United States from all over the world with no arbitrary quotas. And, as a matter of fact, the only people who could become citizens were free white people.

The facts are that all of the founders / framers were dead and in their graves before the United States Supreme Court took it upon themselves to grant Congress "plenary powers" over immigration. The Rule of Law is that the states had control over which foreigners came and went - more importantly stayed within their respective states. So, the United States Supreme Court overstepped their authority and legislated from the bench. THAT is unconstitutional.

Usually, when I get that far in the conversation, the conservatives are pulling their hair out by the roots and doing that Pavlovian conditioned response: "he's for open borders." OMG. Really? Here are people who have been so thoroughly conditioned that they cannot think beyond this point. So, let me make my point to you:

There was a time in this country when we understood the concept of Liberty. We practiced personal responsibility. I can give you an anecdotal story from my past to illustrate the concept:

My parents went from the north when I was a child and then to California and then to Georgia when the riots in Watts began. So, I spent several years in Georgia before becoming a teen. From there, I went to Sevierville, Tennessee where my mother was born and raised. Although there were many signs up, I couldn't get a dollar an hour job if I had two dollars an hour to buy it with. My uncle told me to apply at Cherokee Textile Mills where I had previously applied TWICE. He said to tell them he sent me and what relation we were. Within ten minutes of completing the application, we were discussing my position and pay.

If you weren't from there, nobody wanted to hire you. That accomplished the same thing the wall lobby wants to accomplish - or at least that is what I've been able to extrapolate from what they've said. Trusting a foreign country to tell us the good guys from the bad is naive. So, I do applaud Trump's Executive Orders to keep foreigners out whose government is a sponsor of terrorism and / or has declared Holy War against the United States.

The moral here is that when we were left to act in our own best interests; when employers got to hire whomever they wanted and when people did business with those they chose to do business with, we had the America that some think made America great. We did not need the wall and the peripheral laws that spring up which supposedly help enforce anti-immigration laws (Constitution Free Zone, National ID / REAL ID Act, etc.) We made the America we wanted of our own free will, not by force. FWIW, my complaint is more about those peripheral laws than the wall itself. Still one does not exist without the other. Maybe the power brokers who finance the talking points have another agenda in mind and the masses haven't connected the dots. Be that as it may, if you don't subscribe to the religion of the wall, you are not a conservative. You might, however, be a constitutionalist. You can't be both.

Interesting read.

I am curious to your take on monopolies and TR's trust busting.
Along with the formation of union's.

I would presume that you have no issue with the formation of union's, based upon your view on liberty from government intrusion.
But companies used both private armies and government armies to put down labor movements before the laws changed.

Unions are Jr Communist Leagues. Corrupt greedy assholes and a cash cow for the filthy Democrats.

It is despicable that the government provides protection for the butt pirates.

I am glad I live in a right to work state where the government does not provide protect for the unions.

 

[Syriusly]

A lot of us Conservatives opposed the Patriot Act.

It was the PA that provided the mechanism for the filthy Democrats in the Obama Administration to spy on Trump.

We warned that things like that would happen.

It was a Tea Party Republican that introduced both the so - called "Patriot Act" and the REAL ID Act.

Society is so far removed from considering the experience of those who preceded them that it is hard to extrapolate the truth. But, the fact is, the Democrats are beginning to sound more and more like Republicans from the 1970s and 1980s while the right is taking up more and more of the issues that were championed by the left.

Trump is actually a Democrat which explains why he was able to attack the Constitution on an almost daily basis and get away with it. I can't tell you what is really going on in the world of politics, but it isn't about Trump. While you're being distracted, our Liberties are being flushed down the toilet and if we don't get serious, they will be Gone With the Wind.

I am a real Conservative that believes in individual freedom and non interventionism. I never supported the Patriot Act or the invasion of Iraq.

I can't speak for other people that call themselves Conservatives but support Liberal ideas.

I want you to bear this in mind as you read these paragraphs that the mind is like a parachute. It only works when it's open.

The most glaring example of the right / "conservatives" and a real constitutionalist is in Trump's signature issue: the wall. NO person who believes in the fundamental principles upon which this Republic rests can support the wall. Either Liberty is an unalienable Right or it is not. I heard from one poster and his passing thought about a "meritocracy." I read the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the United States, failing to see the concept much less the word.

When Thomas Jefferson penned the words to the Declaration of Independence, there were no citizens of the United States. Adding insult to injury, despite the fact that within months of the ratification of the United States Constitution and our Congress having fulfilled their only duty relative to foreigners, we continued to allow people to come into the United States from all over the world with no arbitrary quotas. And, as a matter of fact, the only people who could become citizens were free white people.

The facts are that all of the founders / framers were dead and in their graves before the United States Supreme Court took it upon themselves to grant Congress "plenary powers" over immigration. The Rule of Law is that the states had control over which foreigners came and went - more importantly stayed within their respective states. So, the United States Supreme Court overstepped their authority and legislated from the bench. THAT is unconstitutional.

Usually, when I get that far in the conversation, the conservatives are pulling their hair out by the roots and doing that Pavlovian conditioned response: "he's for open borders." OMG. Really? Here are people who have been so thoroughly conditioned that they cannot think beyond this point. So, let me make my point to you:

There was a time in this country when we understood the concept of Liberty. We practiced personal responsibility. I can give you an anecdotal story from my past to illustrate the concept:

My parents went from the north when I was a child and then to California and then to Georgia when the riots in Watts began. So, I spent several years in Georgia before becoming a teen. From there, I went to Sevierville, Tennessee where my mother was born and raised. Although there were many signs up, I couldn't get a dollar an hour job if I had two dollars an hour to buy it with. My uncle told me to apply at Cherokee Textile Mills where I had previously applied TWICE. He said to tell them he sent me and what relation we were. Within ten minutes of completing the application, we were discussing my position and pay.

If you weren't from there, nobody wanted to hire you. That accomplished the same thing the wall lobby wants to accomplish - or at least that is what I've been able to extrapolate from what they've said. Trusting a foreign country to tell us the good guys from the bad is naive. So, I do applaud Trump's Executive Orders to keep foreigners out whose government is a sponsor of terrorism and / or has declared Holy War against the United States.

The moral here is that when we were left to act in our own best interests; when employers got to hire whomever they wanted and when people did business with those they chose to do business with, we had the America that some think made America great. We did not need the wall and the peripheral laws that spring up which supposedly help enforce anti-immigration laws (Constitution Free Zone, National ID / REAL ID Act, etc.) We made the America we wanted of our own free will, not by force. FWIW, my complaint is more about those peripheral laws than the wall itself. Still one does not exist without the other. Maybe the power brokers who finance the talking points have another agenda in mind and the masses haven't connected the dots. Be that as it may, if you don't subscribe to the religion of the wall, you are not a conservative. You might, however, be a constitutionalist. You can't be both.

Interesting read.

I am curious to your take on monopolies and TR's trust busting.
Along with the formation of union's.

I would presume that you have no issue with the formation of union's, based upon your view on liberty from government intrusion.
But companies used both private armies and government armies to put down labor movements before the laws changed.

Unions are Jr Communist Leagues. Corrupt greedy assholes and a cash cow for the filthy Democrats.

It is despicable that the government provides protection for the butt pirates.

I am glad I live in a right to work state where the government does not provide protect for the unions.

Okay thanks for that whine.
I could point out that corporations are greedy assholes and cash cows for Republicans....but I wouldn't do such a thing....

What does that have to do with the topic?

In regards to 'Liberty' do workers have the 'liberty' to band together to compete collectively when it comes to providing labor to corporations?

 

[anynameyouwish]

Thank you Porter R, so pleased to see people reply with thoughtful information. only a few slipped down into personal insults. Have my own opinion but my 14 years of school did not focus on the Constitution or a start on a law degree, that may be one of our problems, seems that new people becoming citizens can answer more questions correctly than those of us born here, because they are required too understand. While we can pick & choice what ever supports our personal view and never be required to view the whole of articles set forth in the Constitution. or seek a fuller understanding.

I tried to be factual without any insults. I worked hard in the movement, spending tens of thousands of dollars of my own money, putting my life on the line and sacrificing family relationships trying to do the right thing.

When the wall idea came along and the media focused on that, the entire right abandoned every post save of that related to the wall. We nearly defeated the IRS, repealing the income tax and the 16th Amendment. They would have been repealed had it not been for an abandonment of the issue (and we had it won.) The National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify system saved the income tax AND it put teeth into the womb to the tomb surveillance necessary to sustain the POLICE STATE. That will be the legislation used to track you and confiscate your weapons over the next two election cycles.

With the Democrats / liberals / left, it is no insult. They cannot say Republican Form of Government and / or unalienable Rights. Try it some time. They hate, loathe and despise every principle the framers stood for. Language is as much a weapon as a firearm. So, the liberals (especially in the courts) simply design a new language. That's just the way it is. I'm not intending to be insulting or unfair.

"With the Democrats / liberals / left, it is no insult. They cannot say Republican Form of Government and / or unalienable Rights. Try it some time. They hate, loathe and despise every principle the framers stood for."

Only a deranged lunatic would believe this bullshit


"Language is as much a weapon as a firearm."


Yes!

It is!

and you are using it as a weapon right now when you say UNTRUE DANGEROUS and DERANGED LIES like;

With the Democrats / liberals / left, it is no insult. They cannot say Republican Form of Government and / or unalienable Rights. Try it some time. They hate, loathe and despise every principle the framers stood for.


" I'm not intending to be insulting or unfair."

Ok

Then I am NOT trying to be insulting or unfair when I say YOU are a lunatic and your beliefs are utter fucking bullshit.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

But i'll play anyways

I read the PA when it came out, and was fairly upset

Few in Congress changed their votes during the sunsetting of it

Now nobody can put a dent in it

To me, America turned the corner into a police state with the PA

A serious loss of 'liberty', at least by my metric

There is no recourse, nothing is going to turn it around, and if i make noise i'm branded lefty, liberal, etc etc

Is there a 90 odd yr old German citizen in the house? Maybe s/he'd understand....

~S~

A lot of us Conservatives opposed the Patriot Act.

It was the PA that provided the mechanism for the filthy Democrats in the Obama Administration to spy on Trump.

We warned that things like that would happen.

It was a Tea Party Republican that introduced both the so - called "Patriot Act" and the REAL ID Act.

Society is so far removed from considering the experience of those who preceded them that it is hard to extrapolate the truth. But, the fact is, the Democrats are beginning to sound more and more like Republicans from the 1970s and 1980s while the right is taking up more and more of the issues that were championed by the left.

Trump is actually a Democrat which explains why he was able to attack the Constitution on an almost daily basis and get away with it. I can't tell you what is really going on in the world of politics, but it isn't about Trump. While you're being distracted, our Liberties are being flushed down the toilet and if we don't get serious, they will be Gone With the Wind.

I am a real Conservative that believes in individual freedom and non interventionism. I never supported the Patriot Act or the invasion of Iraq.

I can't speak for other people that call themselves Conservatives but support Liberal ideas.

I want you to bear this in mind as you read these paragraphs that the mind is like a parachute. It only works when it's open.

The most glaring example of the right / "conservatives" and a real constitutionalist is in Trump's signature issue: the wall. NO person who believes in the fundamental principles upon which this Republic rests can support the wall. Either Liberty is an unalienable Right or it is not. I heard from one poster and his passing thought about a "meritocracy." I read the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the United States, failing to see the concept much less the word.

When Thomas Jefferson penned the words to the Declaration of Independence, there were no citizens of the United States. Adding insult to injury, despite the fact that within months of the ratification of the United States Constitution and our Congress having fulfilled their only duty relative to foreigners, we continued to allow people to come into the United States from all over the world with no arbitrary quotas. And, as a matter of fact, the only people who could become citizens were free white people.

The facts are that all of the founders / framers were dead and in their graves before the United States Supreme Court took it upon themselves to grant Congress "plenary powers" over immigration. The Rule of Law is that the states had control over which foreigners came and went - more importantly stayed within their respective states. So, the United States Supreme Court overstepped their authority and legislated from the bench. THAT is unconstitutional.

Usually, when I get that far in the conversation, the conservatives are pulling their hair out by the roots and doing that Pavlovian conditioned response: "he's for open borders." OMG. Really? Here are people who have been so thoroughly conditioned that they cannot think beyond this point. So, let me make my point to you:

There was a time in this country when we understood the concept of Liberty. We practiced personal responsibility. I can give you an anecdotal story from my past to illustrate the concept:

My parents went from the north when I was a child and then to California and then to Georgia when the riots in Watts began. So, I spent several years in Georgia before becoming a teen. From there, I went to Sevierville, Tennessee where my mother was born and raised. Although there were many signs up, I couldn't get a dollar an hour job if I had two dollars an hour to buy it with. My uncle told me to apply at Cherokee Textile Mills where I had previously applied TWICE. He said to tell them he sent me and what relation we were. Within ten minutes of completing the application, we were discussing my position and pay.

If you weren't from there, nobody wanted to hire you. That accomplished the same thing the wall lobby wants to accomplish - or at least that is what I've been able to extrapolate from what they've said. Trusting a foreign country to tell us the good guys from the bad is naive. So, I do applaud Trump's Executive Orders to keep foreigners out whose government is a sponsor of terrorism and / or has declared Holy War against the United States.

The moral here is that when we were left to act in our own best interests; when employers got to hire whomever they wanted and when people did business with those they chose to do business with, we had the America that some think made America great. We did not need the wall and the peripheral laws that spring up which supposedly help enforce anti-immigration laws (Constitution Free Zone, National ID / REAL ID Act, etc.) We made the America we wanted of our own free will, not by force. FWIW, my complaint is more about those peripheral laws than the wall itself. Still one does not exist without the other. Maybe the power brokers who finance the talking points have another agenda in mind and the masses haven't connected the dots. Be that as it may, if you don't subscribe to the religion of the wall, you are not a conservative. You might, however, be a constitutionalist. You can't be both.

Interesting read.

I am curious to your take on monopolies and TR's trust busting.
Along with the formation of union's.

I would presume that you have no issue with the formation of union's, based upon your view on liberty from government intrusion.
But companies used both private armies and government armies to put down labor movements before the laws changed.

Just as much as I support the employer's right to do with what he wants to do with his own property; it is okay for employees to start a union and fight for better wages. If, however, the union does not prevail, they have little recourse against the employer. The free market dictates the value of things.

I try to hire Americans to do handyman work. It's a running joke in the building and remodeling industry that when you hire someone to do the work, they rarely show up on time, on budget, and meet any deadlines. So, when people cannot do things and I'm on a timeline or budget, I hire temporary laborers. It makes the anti-immigrant people mad, but if I have ... let's say a cement truck showing up at 10 and most of the crew calls in or don't show up, I do what needs to be done.

Insofar as private armies, the framers were against both a standing army and Select militias. IIRC, the feds have waged war many a time against lawful citizen militias including the Black Panthers. Of course, there is a whole body of presumption there, but if you have a tyrannical government with all three branches of the government participating, you eventually get down to a couple of choices passive resistance / civil disobedience OR capitulation to tyranny. Once the bar is moved to the point that you have to make a choice, then it has to be made.

A lot of people apparently are availing themselves of the most obvious choice. I read an anti-gun scare article once that said there might be as many as 500,000 bump stocks in private hands. After Trump's ban, my sources are saying less than 1,000 were ever surrendered.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

A lot of us Conservatives opposed the Patriot Act.

It was the PA that provided the mechanism for the filthy Democrats in the Obama Administration to spy on Trump.

We warned that things like that would happen.

It was a Tea Party Republican that introduced both the so - called "Patriot Act" and the REAL ID Act.

Society is so far removed from considering the experience of those who preceded them that it is hard to extrapolate the truth. But, the fact is, the Democrats are beginning to sound more and more like Republicans from the 1970s and 1980s while the right is taking up more and more of the issues that were championed by the left.

Trump is actually a Democrat which explains why he was able to attack the Constitution on an almost daily basis and get away with it. I can't tell you what is really going on in the world of politics, but it isn't about Trump. While you're being distracted, our Liberties are being flushed down the toilet and if we don't get serious, they will be Gone With the Wind.

I am a real Conservative that believes in individual freedom and non interventionism. I never supported the Patriot Act or the invasion of Iraq.

I can't speak for other people that call themselves Conservatives but support Liberal ideas.

I want you to bear this in mind as you read these paragraphs that the mind is like a parachute. It only works when it's open.

The most glaring example of the right / "conservatives" and a real constitutionalist is in Trump's signature issue: the wall. NO person who believes in the fundamental principles upon which this Republic rests can support the wall. Either Liberty is an unalienable Right or it is not. I heard from one poster and his passing thought about a "meritocracy." I read the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the United States, failing to see the concept much less the word.

When Thomas Jefferson penned the words to the Declaration of Independence, there were no citizens of the United States. Adding insult to injury, despite the fact that within months of the ratification of the United States Constitution and our Congress having fulfilled their only duty relative to foreigners, we continued to allow people to come into the United States from all over the world with no arbitrary quotas. And, as a matter of fact, the only people who could become citizens were free white people.

The facts are that all of the founders / framers were dead and in their graves before the United States Supreme Court took it upon themselves to grant Congress "plenary powers" over immigration. The Rule of Law is that the states had control over which foreigners came and went - more importantly stayed within their respective states. So, the United States Supreme Court overstepped their authority and legislated from the bench. THAT is unconstitutional.

Usually, when I get that far in the conversation, the conservatives are pulling their hair out by the roots and doing that Pavlovian conditioned response: "he's for open borders." OMG. Really? Here are people who have been so thoroughly conditioned that they cannot think beyond this point. So, let me make my point to you:

There was a time in this country when we understood the concept of Liberty. We practiced personal responsibility. I can give you an anecdotal story from my past to illustrate the concept:

My parents went from the north when I was a child and then to California and then to Georgia when the riots in Watts began. So, I spent several years in Georgia before becoming a teen. From there, I went to Sevierville, Tennessee where my mother was born and raised. Although there were many signs up, I couldn't get a dollar an hour job if I had two dollars an hour to buy it with. My uncle told me to apply at Cherokee Textile Mills where I had previously applied TWICE. He said to tell them he sent me and what relation we were. Within ten minutes of completing the application, we were discussing my position and pay.

If you weren't from there, nobody wanted to hire you. That accomplished the same thing the wall lobby wants to accomplish - or at least that is what I've been able to extrapolate from what they've said. Trusting a foreign country to tell us the good guys from the bad is naive. So, I do applaud Trump's Executive Orders to keep foreigners out whose government is a sponsor of terrorism and / or has declared Holy War against the United States.

The moral here is that when we were left to act in our own best interests; when employers got to hire whomever they wanted and when people did business with those they chose to do business with, we had the America that some think made America great. We did not need the wall and the peripheral laws that spring up which supposedly help enforce anti-immigration laws (Constitution Free Zone, National ID / REAL ID Act, etc.) We made the America we wanted of our own free will, not by force. FWIW, my complaint is more about those peripheral laws than the wall itself. Still one does not exist without the other. Maybe the power brokers who finance the talking points have another agenda in mind and the masses haven't connected the dots. Be that as it may, if you don't subscribe to the religion of the wall, you are not a conservative. You might, however, be a constitutionalist. You can't be both.

Interesting read.

I am curious to your take on monopolies and TR's trust busting.
Along with the formation of union's.

I would presume that you have no issue with the formation of union's, based upon your view on liberty from government intrusion.
But companies used both private armies and government armies to put down labor movements before the laws changed.

Unions are Jr Communist Leagues. Corrupt greedy assholes and a cash cow for the filthy Democrats.

It is despicable that the government provides protection for the butt pirates.

I am glad I live in a right to work state where the government does not provide protect for the unions.

They have a right or organize, but they don't have any authority to force the employers to submit to their demands. They could call on their community to boycott the employer / businesses. What protection do they get?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Thank you Porter R, so pleased to see people reply with thoughtful information. only a few slipped down into personal insults. Have my own opinion but my 14 years of school did not focus on the Constitution or a start on a law degree, that may be one of our problems, seems that new people becoming citizens can answer more questions correctly than those of us born here, because they are required too understand. While we can pick & choice what ever supports our personal view and never be required to view the whole of articles set forth in the Constitution. or seek a fuller understanding.

I tried to be factual without any insults. I worked hard in the movement, spending tens of thousands of dollars of my own money, putting my life on the line and sacrificing family relationships trying to do the right thing.

When the wall idea came along and the media focused on that, the entire right abandoned every post save of that related to the wall. We nearly defeated the IRS, repealing the income tax and the 16th Amendment. They would have been repealed had it not been for an abandonment of the issue (and we had it won.) The National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify system saved the income tax AND it put teeth into the womb to the tomb surveillance necessary to sustain the POLICE STATE. That will be the legislation used to track you and confiscate your weapons over the next two election cycles.

With the Democrats / liberals / left, it is no insult. They cannot say Republican Form of Government and / or unalienable Rights. Try it some time. They hate, loathe and despise every principle the framers stood for. Language is as much a weapon as a firearm. So, the liberals (especially in the courts) simply design a new language. That's just the way it is. I'm not intending to be insulting or unfair.

"With the Democrats / liberals / left, it is no insult. They cannot say Republican Form of Government and / or unalienable Rights. Try it some time. They hate, loathe and despise every principle the framers stood for."

Only a deranged lunatic would believe this bullshit


"Language is as much a weapon as a firearm."


Yes!

It is!

and you are using it as a weapon right now when you say UNTRUE DANGEROUS and DERANGED LIES like;

With the Democrats / liberals / left, it is no insult. They cannot say Republican Form of Government and / or unalienable Rights. Try it some time. They hate, loathe and despise every principle the framers stood for.


" I'm not intending to be insulting or unfair."

Ok

Then I am NOT trying to be insulting or unfair when I say YOU are a lunatic and your beliefs are utter fucking bullshit.

I fully support your Right to believe anything you like. As a matter of fact I will and have fought for your Right to say and believe it. That don't make it true.

If you think that a liberal / socialist / communist / Democrat (any or any combination of same) has used the terminology Republican Form of Government and / or unalienable Rights in a positive manner on this board (which must have at least a half million posts by now), then cite the categories? How about a speech by a politician over the last 30 years by those aforementioned groups in the United States. Can you give me a cite that has something positive to say about our Republican Form of Government and / or a commitment to unalienable Rights?

If you can do that, you might be right about me. If not, then you are only insulting me for being both accurate and honest. OTOH, we have major RINOs like Hush Bimbo (Rush Limbaugh) who refers to himself as the Doctor of Democracy. Do you recognize this quote?

"More than any country in history we've made gains toward a democracy that is enviable throughout the world."

I can show you what the RINOs say; the onus is now on you to prove me wrong. Otherwise I will be happy to accept your apology - which will be in the form of not being able to come up with the requested quote.

 

[sparky]

Are you sure you've read this thread?

Interesting read.

I fully support your Right to believe anything you like. As a matter of fact I will and have fought for your Right to say and believe it. That don't make it true.

Thanx for your service Porter.....

You, along w/the rest of you do pose some enlightening points of view , perhaps there's some actual 'neck up' in this one....

So speaking as a completely uneducated uncultured reclusive bluecollar redneck, do i really have the right to be ignorant ,abusive & disrespectful about the liberties granted us all?

~S~