See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: LTC Allen West - The Revolution / American Freedom Tour
Source:
youtube
URL Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP2p91dvm6M
Published: Oct 19, 2010
Author: Allen West
Post Date: 2010-10-19 19:45:49 by Flintlock
Keywords: Allen West, Fix Bayonets!
Views: 371
Comments: 76
Poster Comment: Fix Bayonets! No Prisoners!!! You gotta love this guy.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-35) not displayed.
.
.
.
#36. To: Flintlock (#32)
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Ben Franklin
I'm not going to debate your "purity litmus test", life rarely gives you what you want. Why don't you dig up the dirt on Klein's website? Unless, of course you support a Democrat controlled Congress? Do you? If you don't see West as a significant improvement over Klein, you're blind
WWGPD? - (What Would General Pinochet Do?)
Gun and ammo sales are at record high. And the campus shootings actually backfire on the fascists, making more people support gun ownership rights. That is two for two that you are caught being wrong.
You seem to struggle with political reality You've admitted so much that you're a DemonRAT supporter, why not fly over to the nest and be with your fellow comrades? We need to break the stranglehold Obama & Pelosi have on this country, yet you obstruct, why is that?
WWGPD? - (What Would General Pinochet Do?)
I believe you are mistaken on this. I believe that Reid v. Covert answered this question - at least for now. Since our rule of law/justice system is completely arbitrary, that can easily change if it fits the needs of the government.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976 Nothing in the State, everything outside the State, everything against the State - Jan Lester, Escape From Leviathan "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." - Frederic Bastiat Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone. - Zhuangzi
Well then you should feel quite at ease since you are wrong just about every time you open your mouth.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976 Nothing in the State, everything outside the State, everything against the State - Jan Lester, Escape From Leviathan "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." - Frederic Bastiat Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone. - Zhuangzi
Refer to Article Six of the U.S. Constitution: 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. Also refer to the Charter of the United Nations - Chapter 2, Article 3: The original Members of the United Nations shall be the states which, having participated in the United Nations Conference on International Organization at San Francisco, or having previously signed the Declaration by United Nations of 1 January 1942, sign the present Charter and ratify it in accordance with Article 110. Refer to Article 110: 1. The present Charter shall be ratified by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. 2. The ratifications shall be deposited with the Government of the United States of America, which shall notify all the signatory states of each deposit as well as the Secretary-General of the Organization when he has been appointed. 3. The present Charter shall come into force upon the deposit of ratifications by the Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America, and by a majority of the other signatory states. A protocol of the ratifications deposited shall thereupon be drawn up by the Government of the United States of America which shall communicate copies thereof to all the signatory states. 4. The states signatory to the present Charter which ratify it after it has come into force will become original Members of the United Nations on the date of the deposit of their respective ratifications. This means the Treaty with the United Nations according to Article six of the U.S. Constitution is now a part of the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution notwithstanding. Also it has been fully ratified according to the Articles 3 and 110 of the Charter of the United Nations. We're Fucked! Get over it. P.S. AngK -3 PaulCJ - 0
I want either less corruption or more opportunity to participate in it. Ashleigh Brilliant
With all due respect, the Reid vs Covert case was in regard to an executive agreement- Not a treaty! A sole-executive agreement can only be negotiated and entered into through the president's authority (1) in foreign policy, (2) as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, (3) from a prior act of Congress, or (4) from a prior treaty.[1] Agreements beyond these competencies must have the approval of Congress (for congressional-executive agreements) or the Senate (for treaties) In this case the litigant was the wife of a military officer. Furthermore, the case IN NO WAY set a precedent for the status of Treaties that have been ratified by the two-thirds of the Senate.
I want either less corruption or more opportunity to participate in it. Ashleigh Brilliant
That is two for two that you are caught being wrong Paul, an opinion is never wrong. It is just an opinion!
I want either less corruption or more opportunity to participate in it. Ashleigh Brilliant
"Notwithstanding": in spite of; without being opposed or prevented by: dictionary.reference.com/browse/notwithstanding "To the Contrary notwithstanding" means that federal law and those protections stated in U.S. constitution overrules treaties. A treaty cannot overrule the U.S. constitution. If a treaty could then we would have an absolute dictatorship overnight by a simple two-thirds vote in the U.S. senate. The founding father understood this, that is why they included "To the Contrary notwithstanding".
If not, then no, we don't have to love this guy, he's part of the problem, not a part of the solution. Sliced through to the nut.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" Paul, Are you Dim? Let me translate for you, using your dictionary definition of notwithstanding in a sentence that you can understand. 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, without being opposed or prevented by any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary. Do I need to clarify further?
I want either less corruption or more opportunity to participate in it. Ashleigh Brilliant
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Ben Franklin
Do I need to clarify further? The only 'dim' person here is you. You are the only who needs to point to be further clarified. I quoted the key phrase of words; "to the Contrary notwithstanding". A lot of the U.S. Constitution has little loopholes to prevent the tyranny of what you argue for. You don't not understand what you are talking about. You are arguing for tyranny, whereas I am arguing for freedom. Even if you win you still lose, because all you would have done is shackled yourself to chains. You are willing to foolishly enough to condemn everyone just to proof you are 'right'. Such stupidity on your part is one of the major problems in this world. Now admit I am right, because the alternative, which is 'tyranny', cannot be allowed to be defended.
No bones were thrown his way. There's only so many and the poochies need their food.
Now admit I am right, because the alternative, which is 'tyranny', cannot be allowed to be defended. This is the last time I will respone to your inane comments. I am not trying to proof, or even prove, that I am right. I am trying to educate you, so you can comprehend the dire situation in which we find ourselves. I am certainly not defending tyranny. Tyranny is already a fact of life, which is what I am showing you. Just because you wish it were not so, does not make you right. Don't you understand that? IF YOU CAN'T STAND THE HEAT,GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN! You are like a poor little boy who wishes he was rich so he goes out and buys a car, just to proof-prove he can afford it. How sad!
I want either less corruption or more opportunity to participate in it. Ashleigh Brilliant
Key point, thanks - Agreements beyond these competencies must have the approval of Congress (for congressional-executive agreements) or the Senate (for treaties) Don't forget ratification by the Senate!
Doh. I guess that approval and ratification are the same... Next.
Bump for good dialog and understanding.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
The Constitution supersedes all treaties ratified by the United States Senate. The military may not try the civilian wife of a soldier under military jurisdiction. http://www.constitution.org/ussc/354-001a.htm From the decision itself, written by Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas, and Justice Brennan ..."II. At the time of Mrs. Covert's alleged offense, an executive agreement was in effect between the United States and Great Britain which permitted United States' military courts to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over offenses committed in Great Britain by American servicemen or their dependents. 29 For its part, the United States agreed that these military courts would be willing and able to try and to punish all offenses against the laws of Great Britain by such persons. In all material respects, the same situation existed in Japan when Mrs. Smith [354 U.S. 1, 16] killed her husband. 30 Even though a court-martial does not give an accused trial by jury and other Bill of Rights protections, the Government contends that Art. 2 (11) of the UCMJ, insofar as it provides for the military trial of dependents accompanying the armed forces in Great Britain and Japan, can be sustained as legislation which is necessary and proper to carry out the United States' obligations under the international agreements made with those countries. The obvious and decisive answer to this, of course, is that no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares: "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;... ." There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [354 U.S. 1, 17] War, would remain in effect. 31 It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights — let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition — to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. 32 There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. 33 For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 , it declared: "The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the [354 U.S. 1, 18] government or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent." This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null. 34 It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument. There is nothing in Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 , which is contrary to the position taken here. There the Court carefully noted that the treaty involved was not inconsistent with any specific provision of the Constitution. The Court was concerned with the Tenth Amendment which reserves to the States or the people all power not delegated to the National Government. To the extent that the United States can validly make treaties, the people and the States have delegated their power to the National Government and the Tenth Amendment is no barrier. 35
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976 Nothing in the State, everything outside the State, everything against the State - Jan Lester, Escape From Leviathan "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." - Frederic Bastiat Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone. - Zhuangzi
No, it's not. You have just convinced yourself it is. And you will argue that it is to try to justify how much you limit yourself. You are the sad one here. You don't know what tyranny is. And you are on a path of self-destruction.
Paul, tyranny is a fact of life in America everyday Congress is in session. You see the same practiced every day in America and not just on the federal level but ALL levels of government. Even dog catchers on the local level are caught asleep ignoring their own responsibilities and mushrooming to the federal level is the same but magnified by BILLIONS of times ... just look at the illegal alien issue which includes 9/11.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
Collapse yes, tyranny no. That because you are to rapped up to see what is going on.
Why do you not see the tyranny in front of you, everyday, year after year after year? I wager you vote, too. You will vote for either a republican or democrat party member to represent you, again and again and again.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
You don't even know what tyranny is. Tyranny is where government controls every aspect of a person's life. What to eat, where to live, where to work, whom to talk to, what to wear, what to believe. There are no elections in a tyranny. There is no private ownership of guns in a tyranny. And if you speak you mind you will likely be sent to an labor camp, gulag, or torture dungeon somewhere. This nation is a toss up right now. To many factors to figure which way this nation is heading.
Lets see now, the USgovernments on all levels throughout my existence in America have practiced tyranny. After WW2 to today, there has been a battlecry by all levels of government to hoodink, swindle and create the greatest manifestation of fraud to anyone checking out the outcome of responsible government actions from time to time. I wager I can cite examples here in the land of the free and liberty. No it isn't. You are blind. Tyranny is about the lack of fulfillment of an agreed upon oath by anyone; in effect they are liars to not just themselves but everyone around themselves. Sure there are. You simply rubber-stamp those selected to run for office. So what? Get off your WW2 Russian, German high-horse. REALLY? How come over the past 50 years America has consistently gone downhill?
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
You are the blind one.
You talk about "tyranny" as though it is a reserved word for past governance around the world beyond your control. You suggest WW2 Germany and Russia. Are you daft? Tyranny is right here in America. Where do you see a popular MSM discussion about individual rights, liberties or freedoms; where do you see ANY elected leader discussing the same? America is all fucked-upped and the main reason is because you are blind.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
I talk of 'tyranny' as to what is happening right now in the rest of the world. Of course you are too busy insulting this nation to look beyond it to see what is happening in the rest of the world.
American governance is the "root cause" of failure for current ideas regarding tyranny. From give-aways in the form of TRILLIONS in foreign aid to maintaining wars that do nothing but drain the tax-payer dry. And I haven't even spoke of domestic issues which are ten miles long in a fine 6 size font. OK, bigshot, where has American governance helped YOU since WW2. I wager you won't answer with anything other than the singular exception: the local dog catcher caught a maimed animal.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
And I haven't even spoke of domestic issues which are ten miles long in a fine 6 size font. OK, bigshot, where has American governance helped YOU since WW2. I wager you won't answer with anything other than the singular exception: the local dog catcher caught a maimed animal. You just outed yourself as a anti-american bigot. You falsely blame the U.S. as the "root cause" for tyranny in the world.
OK, who is responsible for America's downfall? We once were the GREATEST nation on the planet; all this nation had to do is act responsible about the power it wielded. Today, not many nations even want a USdollar. America had a chance for future success but not only did the voting publick let down their own dignity but also the elected leaders time after time after time for over 50 years.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
Foreign communists.
Really? Where are they? Were they jailed? Nope. The US government and MSM went along with the cohesive and subtle characteristics of taking over a nation as the populace (the average John/Sally Doe) slept within their day-to-day existence being taxed to death. How did this happen? The American people thought WW2 was their GODSEND for unquestionable methods of foreign conquer. And despite the many failures (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) people like YOU believe in some sort of capability. America's capabilities have been stripped away by all these wars that go nowhere. You are a fool to believe that America has much more than a pulse on gurney laying in a morgue. Oh yes, it was tyranny all along that took us down.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
I have scoped the net looking for a rebuttle to continue this debate. It appears there are many opinions, pro and con, on this controversial issue that have been raging for years. I have found an article that has explained it to my satisfaction: Treaties are voluntary agreements to refrain from certain acts that would, in the absence of a treaty, be perfectly within a nation's right to carry out. So, for example, a treaty that bans the production of new nuclear weapons places certain limits on Congress. Specifically, it acts as a limitation on Congress' power to "raise and support armies." An action that Congress would have been free to do is now illegal. Still, it's hard to see why that would be unconstitutional. All treaties limit the power of the state. That is, all treaties take away the right to do certain things that the state otherwise would have had the Constitutional power to do. Tom's reading of the Constitutionality would, I think, simply have the effect of making all treaties unconstitutional. That reading, however, would pretty clearly run counter to the intent of the Framers. The questions and points in order: 1. (re: surrendering US sovereignty to an international body) "isn't this just what treaties are supposed to do?" - No, I do not believe it is within the power of the US government to cede sovereignty , as the sovereign power is merely delegated to the US government and resident in fact within the people of the United States. Cession of sovereignty would require, as I have mentioned above, a referendum or process at least on par with the original Constitutional Convention, and not simply on a 2/3rds vote of the Senate. Treaties in this sense are like laws, which do not surrender sovereignty but are in fact instantiations of it. 2. "Treaties are voluntary agreements to refrain from certain acts that would, in the absence of a treaty, be perfectly within a nation's right to carry out." - emphasis added on voluntary. Again, it would seem to require more than a 2/3rds vote of the Senate to make legal the compulsion of "specific performance" of this magnitude; the US may break its treaties and suffer the reputational fallout as it happens, but at no point does a treaty decisively constrain ultimate congressional authority, which is derived from the Constitution. 3. "So, for example, a treaty that bans the production of new nuclear weapons places certain limits on Congress. Specifically, it acts as a limitation on Congress' power to 'raise and support armies.' An action that Congress would have been free to do is now illegal." - More precisely, so long as Congress does not amend the law, the Executive branch of the US Government (and state governments and private entities in the US, in accordance with the supremacy clause) is barred from producing new nuclear weapons. It may be pedantry, but Congress proposes, the executive disposes (or however the phrase goes)- Congress may yet abrogate or amend the treaty by law or by directing the executive / President to renegotiate the treaty; it is not barred from taking up the matter again except to the extent that it is concerned about the reputation and good name, faith, and standing of the US people and government; unlike say, in a case of an amendment to the Constitution forbidding the production of nuclear weapons, where Congress may not change policy or take up the matter at all, save through further amendment. 4. "All treaties limit the power of the state. That is, all treaties take away the right to do certain things that the state otherwise would have had the Constitutional power to do." - Not true, for the reasons laid out above. A more correct rephrasing would be: "All treaties limit the power of the state on the margin. That is, all treaties proximally take away the right constrain state policy choices that the state otherwise would have had the Constitutional power to do so choose." The reformulation is, of course, pretty flaccid, but at least its correct. 5. "Tom's reading of the Constitutionality would, I think, simply have the effect of making all treaties unconstitutional. That reading, however, would pretty clearly run counter to the intent of the Framers." - So would a reading that implied that the Constitution could be amended by 2/3rds vote of the Senate, as the Framers rather explicitly told us what their intent was in that regard: Article V - The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; [...] To bind congress, or more specifically to absolutely and in a binding fashion change the authority vested in Congress by the Constitution, one must amend the Constitution. In long, the point again: since the Constitution is the ultimate source of authority in the US government, and as it trumps both law and treaty when there is conflict; and as the Constitution may not be amended by treaty but by manner prescribed by the Constitution; and as it would require an amendment to the Constitution to substantively modify Congress' warmaking authority; the UN treaty therefore is not a legal constraint upon the US Congress' warmaking authority, and Congressional AsUMF or declarations of war are necessary and sufficient for a US war's legality It appears to me (AngK), by the above, that the Constitution authorizes the Treaty under Sec.2 Article 6 and then must amend the Constitution in order to nullify the Treaty. No wonder it is so confusing, both Treaty and Constitution are interdependant.
I want either less corruption or more opportunity to participate in it. Ashleigh Brilliant
You are two-faced scum. On one side of your mouth claim that america is a fault for the problems in the world. On the other side of your mouth you admit that foreign communists are at fault. You admit you know the truth, yet you still make false allegations and state out right lies. You are the most disgusting type of liar there is.
You are two-faced scum. On one side of your mouth claim that america is a fault for the problems in the world. On the other side of your mouth you admit that foreign communists are at fault. You admit you know the truth, yet you still make false allegations and state out right lies. You are the most disgusting type of liar there is. buck you are arguing with a guy who literally worships the government and who has convinced himself that the government is the United States as opposed to its people. His twisted and warped definition of tyranny will not allow him to admit the little tyranny's the United States government works upon its people everyday. He will admit no government wrong until we are a full fledged dictatorship. He is a faux intellectual who has proven beyond a reasonable doubt on dozens of occasions that his reading comprehension is desperately lacking.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976 Nothing in the State, everything outside the State, everything against the State - Jan Lester, Escape From Leviathan "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." - Frederic Bastiat Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone. - Zhuangzi
Currently, that is the truth. The US global empire attempt has lead us to defeat. For a nation so otherwise magnificent, we allowed our own political philosophies to bring us down. Sorry, charlie. But I did not say that. You said that. We have been destroyed from within.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
I want to go back to my question. If you notice, Paul didn't answer it. He went on some sort of diversion because he recognizes that America is no longer the land of the free or the home of the brave. Today, it is the land of government sponsored corporate enterprise otherwise known as fascism. You know, I am really baffled at this US government. As all Americans, we realize that we are in a serious recession (I say depression) and without middle-class jobs, we don't have the buying power to maintain the quality of life that most Americans are accustomed to. Yet, the US government AND BIG_CORPORATIONS have consistently worked towards shipping factories and jobs offshore as opposed to finding methods here to retain workers here; moreover, the importation of foreign workers to fill remaining jobs has been continuously encouraged. In fact a recent Senate bill to provide tax incentives to US companies for adding workers was recently voted down. Again, I am baffled at the reasoning of these lawmakers. They encourage US intervention around the world and meanwhile, here in America, they do absolutely nothing but encourage a complete lack of understanding about the problems many people face.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
You refuse to state any examples. While, I have stated examples.
#37. To: angK (#35)
#38. To: ghostdogtxn (#33)
if he's gung-ho for the wars, he's automatically standing against freedom.
#39. To: angK (#35)
The continuous suspicious reports of shootings on campuses and now the Pentagon, will feed the gun control issue until we are totally disarmed. Yup. Yup, Yup. We're fucked!
#40. To: Eric Stratton (#28)
yet so many here seem to struggle with it.
#41. To: angK (#26)
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld that any Treaty made by the U.S. with an outside entity supercedes the U.S. Constitution.
#42. To: PaulCJ (#39)
That is two for two that you are caught being wrong.
#43. To: PaulCJ (#34)
#44. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#41)
#45. To: PaulCJ (#39)
Gun and ammo sales are at record high. And the campus shootings actually backfire on the fascists, making more people support gun ownership rights.
#46. To: angK (#43)
(Edited)
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.
#47. To: Eric Stratton (#1)
(Edited)
Is there a part in there where he calls for an immediate end to the ZOG's wars and the financial/economic misery that they've caused and continue to cause, ... not to mention the terminal erosion of our civil liberties???
#48. To: PaulCJ (#46)
To the Contrary notwithstanding" means that federal law and those protections stated in U.S. constitution overrules treaties.
#49. To: angK (#48)
#50. To: angK (#48)
(Edited)
Paul, Are you Dim? Let me translate for you, using your dictionary definition of notwithstanding in a sentence that you can understand.
#51. To: Eric Stratton, 4 (#17)
#52. To: PaulCJ (#50)
You are willing to foolishly enough to condemn everyone just to proof you are 'right'. Such stupidity on your part is one of the major problems in this world.
#53. To: angK, 4 (#44)
#54. To: lod (#53)
#55. To: angK, GreyLmist (#48)
#56. To: angK (#44)
(Edited)
With all due respect, the Reid vs Covert case was in regard to an executive agreement- Not a treaty!
#57. To: angK (#52)
Tyranny is already a fact of life,
#58. To: PaulCJ (#57)
#59. To: buckeroo (#58)
Paul, tyranny is a fact of life in America everyday Congress is in session. You see the same practiced every day in America and not just on the federal level but ALL levels of government.
#60. To: PaulCJ (#59)
#61. To: buckeroo (#60)
Why do you not see the tyranny in front of you, everyday, year after year after year?
#62. To: PaulCJ (#61)
You don't even know what tyranny is.
Tyranny is where government controls every aspect of a person's life. What to eat, where to live, where to work, whom to talk to, what to wear, what to believe.
There are no elections in a tyranny.
There is no private ownership of guns in a tyranny.
And if you speak you mind you will likely be sent to an labor camp, gulag, or torture dungeon somewhere.
This nation is a toss up right now. To many factors to figure which way this nation is heading.
#63. To: buckeroo (#62)
I wager I can cite examples here in the land of the free and liberty. No it isn't. You are blind.
#64. To: PaulCJ (#63)
#65. To: buckeroo (#64)
You talk about "tyranny" as though it is a reserved word for past governance around the world beyond your control.
#66. To: PaulCJ (#65)
I talk of 'tyranny' as to what is happening right now in the rest of the world. Of course you are too busy insulting this nation to look beyond it to see what is happening in the rest of the world.
#67. To: buckeroo (#66)
American governance is the "root cause" of failure for current ideas regarding tyranny. From give-aways in the form of TRILLIONS in foreign aid to maintaining wars that do nothing but drain the tax-payer dry.
#68. To: PaulCJ (#67)
You falsely blame the U.S. as the "root cause" for tyranny in the world.
#69. To: buckeroo (#68)
OK, who is responsible for America's downfall?
#70. To: PaulCJ (#69)
#71. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#56)
#72. To: buckeroo (#70)
Where are they? Were they jailed? Nope. The US government and MSM went along with the cohesive and subtle characteristics of taking over a nation as the populace (the average John/Sally Doe) slept within their day-to-day existence being taxed to death. How did this happen?
#73. To: PaulCJ, buckeroo (#72)
Where are they? Were they jailed? Nope. The US government and MSM went along with the cohesive and subtle characteristics of taking over a nation as the populace (the average John/Sally Doe) slept within their day-to-day existence being taxed to death. How did this happen?
#74. To: PaulCJ (#72)
On one side of your mouth claim that america is a fault for the problems in the world.
On the other side of your mouth you admit that foreign communists are at fault.
#75. To: F.A. Hayek Fan, PaulCJ (#73)
How did this happen?
#76. To: buckeroo (#75)
He went on some sort of diversion because he recognizes that America is no longer the land of the free or the home of the brave.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest