Declaration Of Independence--Study It.
William Flax
OneTwoThree
"William Flax" <krtq...@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:YFqbk.12048$jI5....@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
William Flax
"OneTwoThree" <you...@notverysmart.ru> wrote in message news:Sqmdnb2dYcj29PPV...@comcast.com...
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
> What we celebrate, today, is the Declaration of Independence. It sets forth our philosophy of Government--strictly limited by compact & function. It reiterates ancient principles, found also in the Magna Carta.
> first off, the Declaration is NOT a document of governance. It is a justification (some might say "rationalization" ) of the fight for independence to foreign nations, as a part of a propaganda campaign.
>
> Let's just look at a couple of things:
>
> The list of complaints against the king of England - can anyone other than those who desire the overthrow of our own government in favor of a socialist system state truthfully that the government of the united states is engaged in these activities?
>
> just one example: He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
>
> who is it who demands litmus test for judges, and if candidates do not fit the leftist mold and profess that they will rule according to the leftist agenda, refuse to confirms?
>
> He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their substance.
>
> who is it who demands more bureaucracies with more control over the lives of so many more?
>
> He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
>
> who is it who work tirelessly for a nanny state (controlled by them, of course) at the expense of working people?
>
> That aside, the Declaration contains no elements of governance. There are elements that are contained in the bill of rights, which the left wants to destroy. ( end of free speech by regulating content especially on talk radio, elimination of the second amendment, end of freedom of religion, end of states rights, application of rights in criminal procedures to enemy combatants on the battlefield, etc.
>
> The constitution is the operating document in this country. The declaration is interesting, but it points out more about the left and the dangers of the left, if they have their way destroying the constitution.
>
> It is not my intention to spoil anyone's parade, today. But honor suggests that one dissent from the idea that Americans have anything to celebrate, July 4, 2008. For those who understand what today is supposed to commemorate, the signing of the Declaration Of Independence, it must rather be seen as a day for deep soul searching, followed by rededication for those who have what it takes to challenge what has been happening.
>
> The day should best start with a rereading of the Declaration: http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/declare.htm.
>
> Then take a little while to think about what you have read; about the brave and intelligent men, who signed it. Offer a prayer of thanks, that there once were such brave and intelligent men! Consider what they would think about our present politics; our culture of dependence upon a Government far bigger and far more remote from the individual American than was the Government rejected 232 years ago; our betrayal by politicians urging ever greater involvement with international movements, that threaten the individuality of every Nation; those that seek to pretend that all peoples are interchangeable--an absolute absurdity, being virtually taught in a public school system, that has almost totally forgotten what the American Revolution was actually about; what the Founding Fathers actually believed. Consider that we are further betrayed by a Federal Government, that seems absolutely incapable of any real or sustained effort to preserve the lands and resources of the American people for their own posterity.
>
> Two days ago, we posted a brief note in several news groups on the subject of Senator Obama, as an "accidental American." Several of his supporters were quick to take umbrage. But our point was not Obama, himself, but the loss of an American identity that was so severe, that the normal gossip, which one would expect, where one whose father was merely passing through, had been nominated by our oldest political party for President, was not in evidence. Of course, we were not trying to elevate gossip, itself, as a virtue. But a study of the things that people gossip about, tells one a lot about the psychology of a given people, at a given moment in time.
>
> We are further adrift, than most mainstream Americans want to admit.
>
> Have a soul searching Fourth!!
>
> Bill Flax
You say: ". . . But our point was not Obama, himself, but the loss of
an American identity . . . "
And exactly what would that "American identity" be?
Seems to me that each of us is defined not by what our parents were
but by what each of us is, individually, ourselves.
So what if Senator Obama's father was "passing through."
Obama is not "passing through." He is as much an American as anyone
else in this country -- and more of an American than many I can think
of.
Mr.Smartypants
LOL!!!
He proved he's certainly mainstream presedential material by flip-
flopping on bringing the troops home from Iraq.
PseuDoeCyAnts
"OneTwoThree" <you...@notverysmart.ru> posted
in news:Sqmdnb2dYcj29PPV...@comcast.com:
hat a crock of blathering twaddle, offering more direct
evidence onto the already mountainous heap, that Contemporary
Conservatism in America continues onward in its long spiraling
plunge into the darkness of ingorance that is the abyss of
moral relativism.
> who is it who demands litmus test for judges, and if
> candidates do not fit the leftist mold and profess that they
> will rule according to the leftist agenda, refuse to confirms?
Why do you callously ignore the litmus tests of the political
right in your analysis. haven't you ever heard of the Utarded
Senator, Orrin Hatch? Should we revisit the Mau-Mauing of
Clinton nominee to the Federal Bench, Ronnie White?
> who is it who demands more bureaucracies with
> more control over the lives of so many more?
Recently, without question, it has been the political right:
Homeland Defense?
PATRIOT Bill?
FISA reauthorization?
All of these were passed with near unanimous Republican and with
significant Democrat minority assent, yet with very few
exceptions,
all dissent to these burdensome and unconstitutional overreaches
into
the affairs of the citizenry was from the political left.
> That aside, the Declaration contains no elements of governance.
> There are elements that are contained in the bill of rights,
> which the left wants to destroy. ( end of free speech by
> regulating content especially on talk radio, elimination of the
> second amendment, end of freedom of religion, end of states
> rights, application of rights in criminal procedures to enemy
> combatants on the battlefield, etc.
You only offer proof of your blinders with these spewing
partisan mistruths. Free speech has been attacked by the Bush
Administration frequently and aggressively. The left does not
attack freedom of religion. This is primarily a trait of the
right, who believes that their personal version (per.version) of
Christianity should have the force of law in America. Who was it
that fought placing a Wiccan symbol on the headstone of a
veteran killed in the GWOT in a Veterans' cemetery?
Additionally, your assesment of criminal procedures'
applicability proves that you've saddled up backwards for the
Constitution's Defense.
Yo, listen-up Asswards Ho:
The Constitution is not the fount from which liberty flows. It
is instead the framework from which a legitimate Constitutional
American government must work within. Our Rights are preexistent
and preeminent to the State. A people who believe their rights
are gifted to them from a beneficent state will never be free.
The moment that these humans were stripeed of their Geneva
conventions protections, and helld as "unlawful combatants" by
the government, they were being held as criminal actors, not
soldiers. At that very moment, they became fully vested in their
Natural Rights to due process of law, which assuredly includes
habeas corpus. Bitch and moan all you want, splay-legged
slattern of the right, but it is your side of the Political
Bipolarity, that presently engages in the most abusive thefts of
human rights.
\----------\----------\----------\----------\
/----------/----------/----------/----------/
The history of the current President of The United States is a
history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in
direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over The
Nation. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws,
the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, with
presidential findings attached as illegitimate addendum
to signed enactments which opposed with manly firmness
his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice,
by refusing his Assent to Judicial Decisions.
He has erected The Office of Homeland Defense,
paid for with promissory notes on the future's revenues
and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our People,
and eat out their pensions.
He has affected to render the Military
independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction
foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws;
giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended legislation:
For depriving humans, in many cases,
of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting humans beyond Seas
to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws
in a neighbouring island's Naval base,
establishing therein an Arbitrary government,
and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it
at once an example and fit instrument for introducing
the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters,
abolishing our most valuable Laws,
and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments.
He has plundered the seas, ravaged the Coasts, burnt the towns,
and destroyed the lives of a people in a false war he was
subsequently unable to prove had caused The Nation harm.
He is at this time transporting large armies
of corporate mercenaries to compleat the works
of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun
with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy
scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages,
and totally unworthy of the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow honourable Citizens
whose committments to serve in our military had ended,
forcing them to bear Arms against a foreign Country unjustly,
to become the executioners of them, or to fall themselves
into a Judicial Process which no longer adheres
to due process of law.
He has excited sectarian insurrections within a foreign land,
an endeavour likely to bring on the inhabitants of This Nation,
the Merciless Terrorists, whose known rule of warfare, is an
undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
OneTwoThree
"PseuDoeCyAnts" <pseu...@labb.port5.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AD371282341Or...@198.186.190.163...
who is it who preaches "moral relativism" ? certainly not conservatives.
>
>> who is it who demands litmus test for judges, and if
>> candidates do not fit the leftist mold and profess that they
>> will rule according to the leftist agenda, refuse to confirms?
>
> Why do you callously ignore the litmus tests of the political
> right in your analysis. haven't you ever heard of the Utarded
> Senator, Orrin Hatch? Should we revisit the Mau-Mauing of
> Clinton nominee to the Federal Bench, Ronnie White?
or Bork before that?
note that the left was unable to "mau mau" well qualified judges Alito and
Roberts, no matter how much they wanted to. And that is the only
qualification for a justice - well versed in the law, not the doctrine of
the left.
>
>> who is it who demands more bureaucracies with
>> more control over the lives of so many more?
>
> Recently, without question, it has been the political right:
>
> Homeland Defense?
> PATRIOT Bill?
> FISA reauthorization?
>
> All of these were passed with near unanimous Republican and with
> significant Democrat minority assent, yet with very few
> exceptions,
> all dissent to these burdensome and unconstitutional overreaches
> into
> the affairs of the citizenry was from the political left.
>
>> That aside, the Declaration contains no elements of governance.
>> There are elements that are contained in the bill of rights,
>> which the left wants to destroy. ( end of free speech by
>> regulating content especially on talk radio, elimination of the
>> second amendment, end of freedom of religion, end of states
>> rights, application of rights in criminal procedures to enemy
>> combatants on the battlefield, etc.
>
> You only offer proof of your blinders with these spewing
> partisan mistruths. Free speech has been attacked by the Bush
> Administration frequently and aggressively.
McCain Feingold? so called campaign finance reform was nothing more than a
frontal assault on free speech. As is the so called "fairness" doctrine. If
you dontthink speech is free, then the solution to the perceived problem is
MORE free speech, not less.
>The left does not
> attack freedom of religion.
RFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>This is primarily a trait of the
> right, who believes that their personal version (per.version) of
> Christianity should have the force of law in America.
sorry - does not happen that way. the left wants to ramrod its own moral
relativism and atheism down the throats of the rest of us.
>Who was it
> that fought placing a Wiccan symbol on the headstone of a
> veteran killed in the GWOT in a Veterans' cemetery?
whio is it who believes that it is offensive to hear someone say "Merry
Christmas" ?
>
> Additionally, your assesment of criminal procedures'
> applicability proves that you've saddled up backwards for the
> Constitution's Defense.
huh?
>
> Yo, listen-up Asswards Ho:
> The Constitution is not the fount from which liberty flows. It
> is instead the framework from which a legitimate Constitutional
> American government must work within. Our Rights are preexistent
> and preeminent to the State. A people who believe their rights
> are gifted to them from a beneficent state will never be free.
finally, something sensible. 9th and 10th amendments say it all. what, you
think I'm incapable of criticizing right wingers and conservatives when I
think they are wrong? Got news for you, pal. when that muslim was elected to
congress and wanted to swear his oath of office on the Koran, and the idiot
right wingers were all huffing and puffing about it, I wrote many an e-mail
to them pointing out the 1st amendment, along with article 6 (no religious
test)
>
> The moment that these humans were stripeed of their Geneva
> conventions protections,
sorry, but al Qeda is not a signatory to the geneva convention. they are not
a legitimate government fielding a legal army.
>and helld as "unlawful combatants" by
> the government, they were being held as criminal actors, not
> soldiers. At that very moment, they became fully vested in their
> Natural Rights to due process of law, which assuredly includes
> habeas corpus. Bitch and moan all you want, splay-legged
> slattern of the right, but it is your side of the Political
> Bipolarity, that presently engages in the most abusive thefts of
> human rights.
yeah yeah, whatever you say, leftbot.
Cary Kittrell
>
> It is not my intention to spoil anyone's parade, today. But honor
> suggests that one dissent from the idea that Americans have anything to
> celebrate, July 4, 2008. For those who understand what today is
> supposed to commemorate, the signing of the Declaration Of Independence,
> it must rather be seen as a day for deep soul searching, followed by
> rededication for those who have what it takes to challenge what has been
> happening.
>
> The day should best start with a rereading of the Declaration:
>
> Then take a little while to think about what you have read; about the
> brave and intelligent men, who signed it. Offer a prayer of thanks,
> that there once were such brave and intelligent men! Consider what they
> would think about our present politics; our culture of dependence upon a
> Government far bigger
...for a country immensely bigger, both in people and territory,
and interconnected to a degree utterly unimaginable to even
the most forward-looking of the Fathers...
> and far more remote from the individual American
> than was the Government rejected 232 years ago;
...I can pick up my phone and be talking to my Senator's
peope in one minute; I've done it several times...
> our betrayal by
> politicians urging ever greater involvement with international
> movements, that threaten the individuality of every Nation;
...in an age in which every major country is economically
dependent on every other major country, not to mention
an age in which a country 2000 miles away could wipe out
our cities in 90 minutes.
> those that
> seek to pretend that all peoples are interchangeable--an absolute
> absurdity, being virtually taught in a public school system, that has
> almost totally forgotten what the American Revolution was actually
> about; what the Founding Fathers actually believed.
Indeed, they believed not only that not all peoples are interchangeable,
they in fact believed some peoples were destined by birth to be
slaves to some other peoples.
Thanks, but I prefer the present outlook.
-- cary
PseuDoeCyAnts
"OneTwoThree" <you...@notverysmart.ru> posted
in news:jJSdnVADRIV3XuzV...@comcast.com:
>>The left does not
>> attack freedom of religion.
>
> RFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
now that is a fine counter-argument,
for a ditto-head...
PseuDoeCyAnts
in news:jJSdnVADRIV3XuzV...@comcast.com:
>>> who is it who demands litmus test for judges, and if
>>> candidates do not fit the leftist mold and profess that they
>>> will rule according to the leftist agenda, refuse to confirms?
>>
>> Why do you callously ignore the litmus tests of the political
>> right in your analysis. haven't you ever heard of the Utarded
>> Senator, Orrin Hatch? Should we revisit the Mau-Mauing of
>> Clinton nominee to the Federal Bench, Ronnie White?
>
> or Bork before that?
>
Proof That Two Wrongs Make A Righty.
To justify an improper action,
because another has acted in this manner improperly
is not only just an act of moral relativism,
it is a argument that is not befiiting a 12 year old child.
But mommy, lefty did it first?
What an imbecile.
PseuDoeCyAnts
in news:jJSdnVADRIV3XuzV...@comcast.com:
>>Who was it
>> that fought placing a Wiccan symbol on the headstone of a
>> veteran killed in the GWOT in a Veterans' cemetery?
>
> whio is it who believes that it is offensive to hear someone say
> "Merry Christmas" ?
>
Again,
PseuDoeCyAnts
in news:jJSdnVADRIV3XuzV...@comcast.com:
>> The moment that these humans were stripeed of their Geneva
>> conventions protections,
>
> sorry, but al Qeda is not a signatory to the geneva convention.
> they are not a legitimate government fielding a legal army.
>
>>and helld as "unlawful combatants" by
>> the government, they were being held as criminal actors, not
>> soldiers. At that very moment, they became fully vested in
>> their Natural Rights to due process of law, which assuredly
>> includes habeas corpus. Bitch and moan all you want,
>> splay-legged slattern of the right, but it is your side of the
>> Political Bipolarity, that presently engages in the most
>> abusive thefts of human rights.
>
> yeah yeah, whatever you say, leftbot.
>
>
>
But the problem remains, that Afghanistan was a signatory to the
Geneva Conventions, and Iraq most assuredly was also. the Geneva
conventions Article 5 paragraph 3 states:
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having
committed a belligerent act and having fallen into
the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories
enumerated in Article 4 (defining 8 separate classes
of individuals protected by the Geneva Conventions),
such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present
Convention until such time as their status has been
determined by a competent tribunal.
But then,m you'vwe never actually read The Geneva Conventions
Relative to The Treament of pRisoners of War, have you?
Are you going to attempt the asinine assertion that a simple
pronouncement by the president is a "competent tribunal"?
The U.S. Constitution; Article VI; VClause 2 states:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States
which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all
Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall
be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
What is your definition of
"The Supreme Law of The Land"?
Come on now lil repeat-a-con, spit it out...
OneTwoThree
"dittohead" - what the leftbots call anyone who posts on this particular
newsgroup. not caring whether that person listens to Limbaugh more or less
that Grapman
,
OneTwoThree
wah wah wah, you idiot leftbot
.
OneTwoThree
and multiple repetitions of the same leftist mantras make a leftbot
.
ZerkonX
> The moment that these humans were stripeed of their Geneva conventions
> protections, and helld as "unlawful combatants" by the government,
was the moment anyone could be.
The law abiding citizen is only that under a law abiding government.