See other World News Articles
Title: Naomi Wolf Interview - The End of America
Source:
You Tube
URL Source: [None]
Published: Nov 22, 2007
Author: Naomi Wolf Interview
Post Date: 2007-11-22 21:23:05 by Zipporah
Keywords: None
Views: 226
Comments: 23
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Zipporah (#0)
My hat is off to Naomi. That was an excellent presentation. I have fwd it to a lot of my contact and I am sure I will get hate from some of them. The citizens are in danger from the State. As is the rest of the world. The year 2008 may suck in a very big way.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" However, "individual acts of conscience" will get you run over by a tank. It will take, IMO, more than protests, more than votes, and more than acts of conscience. It will take the watering of TheTreeOfLiberty "with the blood of patriots and tyrants." It will also take, as she said, "millions" to rise up, or else we're already dead. Can anyone see that happening spontaneously in this country of apathetic fraidy cats? Nope. It will take many brave individual patriots to become martyrs...to set an example..before others will follow. May God hold us all in the hollow of His hand as our destiny approaches.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition www.huffingtonpost.com/na...close-down-a_b_46695.html Listening, in a few minutes so far. I think it's interesting that she keeps using the word "democracy." Also, she doesn't cite Russia in 1919, but instead jumps forward to the 1930s.
I know.. we live..well did live in a democratic republic not a democracy.. democracy can be a very bad thing.. I just posted a video that you will find interesting.. Waiting for the Guards ..very short but very disturbing.
I thought it was very excellent.. But IMO the only time people will wake up is when it's too late
It is a great interview. Listen to it more than once. This is an extremely skilled wordsmith, possibly genius IQ, and possibly on a CIA payroll as an agent provacatuer, which, for someone who knows no French, is pronounced perfectly. One never ever can know in these days of treachery and one should never trust any one person alone. Never stop thinking independently and ping to my #3.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition Well yes. The socialist hippies are going to have to join up with the right wing gun nuts if they want to crack this thing. Here we have a bra-burning Marxist-feminist telling us that we're about to lose our country to a dictatorship. It's rich, but I'm listening.
I'm going to have to replay this for a PhD I know at school and get her opinion. She is very skilled in the recognition of propaganda. If this is...it's damn slick. I'm going to have to listen to this word by word and read the book and tear it apart in order to come to a conclusion. I heard only ONE obvious slip-up, so to speak as I pointed out in #3...she contradicted herself twice in the last 3 minutes by stating "individual acts of conscience" AND "it will take millions to rise up." A paradox if there ever was one since she failed to explain, as I did in #3, that these "individual acts of conscience" won't work, except in a very specific way. I wonder how she got OFF the no-fly list since hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans can not???????
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition You're serious about these contradictions? I can attribute them to her emergence out of a leftist milieu to a non-left/right paradigm of traditional patriotism. She's possibly experiencing cognitive dissonance.
If she is sincere, that is a very valid hypothesis...something any newly awakened person would experience.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition www.americanfreedomcampaign.org I was thinking Dennis or Elizabeth Kucinich had mentioned this campaign in a recent speech. On the coincidences, I don't really know. I'll be interested in your thoughts on this after you've talked with your friend. In any case, ideas are ideas. I've been calling for impeachment with trials for a while now. My issues intersect with hers, but include other concerns such as border security and sovereignty. Judge Andrew Napolitano discusses the loss of the 1st, 4th, and 10th amendments, and habeas corpus elements of the Constitution. Civil libertarians on the left and the right should unite to save the country.
wow, thanks for posting this. I knew of the book but had not heard her interviewed before. I was on my way to bed and thought I'd watch a couple of minutes, but ended up watching the whole thing (and popping over to amazon and ordering several copies of the book, for myself and friends and relatives). she's awfully good - manages to convey immediacy without shrillness, rather with intelligence and historical perspective. again, thanks.
Only if you're one of the 10% who have a file... LOL.
You know, I've heard many times that the FF didn't set up a democracy but rather a republic. I think BOTH are wrong (no matter what any of the FF may have SAID they had established). Clearly, they did NOT set up a situation designed for 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner - a democracy. Nor did they set up a republic. The definition of a republic is: Think CAREFULLY about that definition. It says "supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote". Consider this - we did not have a category of people called "citizens" until it was created by the 14th Amendment! What the FF TRULY set up was (and no one ever claims this) a FEDERATION! The definition of a Federation is: A Federation by definition leaves the majority of the power to these smaller and more localized entities! In other words, the majority of power resides at the state and local level. THIS is how it SHOULD be, and THIS is what Ron Paul is really advocating! I know this seems to be a meaningless "rant", but it's really NOT. If we can't even grasp the concept of WHAT we REALLY ARE, then it's readily apparent that the PTB has fully sold us on a fiction, and we've bought it hook, line and sinker! The way to get to where we need to be (as a nation) is for EVERYONE to WAKE UP (which goes WAY BEYOND the term that so many of us now loosely use) and QUIT living in the FICTION - get into REALITY. It is pure FICTION that they have the authority to MAKE us play this big GAME they've created using their various debaucheries such as licenses and social(ist) (in)security. FREE people don't ask PERMISSION (the legal definition of a license) to do things like get married, travel, or catch a fucking fish for supper! Everyone talks about a "peaceful solution". A peaceful solution to WHAT? To a GAME who's rules no one likes, THAT'S what! The ONLY peaceful solution is for everyone to QUIT playing the game.
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards. On the road to tyranny, we've gone so far that polite political action is about as useless as a miniskirt in a convent. IMO, this one is even better for reaching out to the blind sheeple. freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=64680
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
Where did you get that definition of "republic"? My understanding of "republic" is any government that isn't presided over by a monarch. As soon as the French National Assembly deposed King Louis XVI, France became a republic, and ceased to be a republic when Napoleon declared himself emperor. As soon as Tsar Nicholas II abdicated, Russia became a republic, and remained such under Communist rule, as part of the USSR, and remains a republic even in today's post-Communist days. As soon as Kaiser Wilhelm II abdicated, Germany became a republic, remained one under Hitler (under whom the Constitution of the Weimar Republic remained technically in effect, with the modifications made by the Reichstag Fire Decree and Hitler's Enabling Act,) remained two republics during the Cold War, and remains a republic today. It was not with independence in 1921 that Ireland became a republic, but with the secession from the British Commonwealth and removal of recognition of the British monarch more than two decades later. South Africa became a republic when it seceded from the British Commonwealth, whereas I believe Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, still technically with dominion status within the British Commonwealth, do not call themselves republics. My Webster's dictionary gives as its first definition of "republic" the following: 1.a. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usu. a president. A republic can of course also be a federation. It can also be a democracy. It can, in fact, be all three things at once.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
First of all, and I think you've acknowledged this yourself above: we do not have these arguments for trivial reasons. We we debate the definition of our government because it is so important that we communicate clearly about it. The reference to democracy has been a tool of the collectivists, especially in our class rooms. This is not without reason, as they hope increasingly to draw us as a nation to the conclusion that people can dictate rights by opinion, for example the fictitious right to marry, or the right to a standard of living guaranteed by the state. In the EU, one has a right to leisure. Once accomplished, the assumption that the state, not the Creator (nor Nature) is the arbiter of rights. The people may arbitrarily grant or deny them. For example, the right to keep and bear arms. This is the French Enlightenment approach to law, and it was espoused first by Jean Jacques Rousseau. As Andrew Napolitano says, Madison took to this approach, articulating thoughts on the consent of the governed and so forth. Jefferson took the libertarian view, which disputed that the consent of the governed is in any way adequate. It is a prerequisite to liberty, but it is insufficient. Our rights are immutable, unalienable. They do not come from our imaginations. A democracy, or rule by popular vote, was clearly not what they intended. Nor did they intend to follow the recipe you have quoted as the definition of a "republic." Second, the Founding Fathers were clearly creating a unique form of government never tried before. Finally, it is from our Constitution that we take these definitions, specifically Article IV, section 4: What the FF TRULY set up was (and no one ever claims this) a FEDERATION! The definition of a Federation is: An encompassing political or societal entity formed by uniting smaller or more localized entities. I like this view. I know this seems to be a meaningless "rant", but it's really NOT. I agree, you're making quite a bit of sense here.
That's where I got my definition. How much different is a "monarch" from a "president" when the "president" has the power to issue "executive orders"?
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards. On the road to tyranny, we've gone so far that polite political action is about as useless as a miniskirt in a convent. If your point is that the difference between a monarchy and a republic is only technical, I quite agree. In fact, one can be much freer in a constitutional monarchy like Britain or various other states of Europe today than in a republic like Nazi Germany or Communist Russia or China.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
The NWO types know better than to put people like her on that list. That's for a later phase.
Exactly. People REALLY need to grasp the legal definition of a license to have a better understanding of RIGHTS. A license is defined as: Rights are something we ALREADY possessed at the time of our birth - which are dictated by the rules of nature (just to be "in line" with those that don't believe in GOD). The ONLY source which we have at our disposal to knowing what our RIGHTS are (besides what is written in our hearts) is Scripture. WHERE in Scripture is it written that it is illegal to get married? I can't find a record anywhere in there of anyone having to ASK PERMISSION to get married. The same holds true for hunting, fishing, conducting business, carrying a weapon, and traveling - using by the way the most MODERN CONVEYANCE OF THE TIME! We are NOT relegated to having to walk... It is no more than FICTION that some corporate contrivance (which is what a STATE is) has any authority to make such activities ILLEGAL in the first place with which to use as an excuse for "requiring" a license. The REALITY IS that those wishing to pursue a license are wishing to pursue CRIMINAL ACTIVITY! My wanting to go visit my sick grandmother halfway across the country or get married is NOT a criminal activity UNLESS I MAKE IT SO by GIVING the STATE that authority by procuring a LICENSE! Until we wake up, and LEARN and understand our RIGHTS and then EXERCISE and DEFEND them, we have no claim TO them, and will continue to be TRICKED into giving them up (as Esau did); and can only expect our situation to grow worse. In legal terms - we are the proximate cause of our own injuries.
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards. On the road to tyranny, we've gone so far that polite political action is about as useless as a miniskirt in a convent. Yes, that is my point. I should have included the definition you gave along with the question I posed in response to you in my original post...
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards. On the road to tyranny, we've gone so far that polite political action is about as useless as a miniskirt in a convent. Bump this
#2. To: Zipporah (#0)
#3. To: Zipporah, innieway, original_intent, lodwick, christine, jethro tull, RESISTANCE, ALL (#0)
(Edited)
EXCELLENT!
"There is no 'legitimate' Corporation by virtue of it's very legal definition and purpose."
-- IndieTx
#4. To: Zipporah (#0)
#5. To: buckeye (#4)
#6. To: tom007 (#2)
#7. To: buckeye (#4)
(Edited)
I think it's interesting that she keeps using the word "democracy." Also, she doesn't cite Russia in 1919, but instead jumps forward to the 1930s.
"There is no 'legitimate' Corporation by virtue of it's very legal definition and purpose."
-- IndieTx
#8. To: Zipporah (#5)
#9. To: buckeye (#8)
(Edited)
"There is no 'legitimate' Corporation by virtue of it's very legal definition and purpose."
-- IndieTx
#10. To: IndieTX (#9)
#11. To: buckeye (#10)
I can attribute them to her emergence out of a leftist milieu to a non-left/right paradigm of traditional patriotism. She's possibly experiencing cognitive dissonance.
"There is no 'legitimate' Corporation by virtue of it's very legal definition and purpose."
-- IndieTx
#12. To: IndieTX (#11)
#13. To: Zipporah (#0)
#14. To: Zipporah (#5)
Waiting for the Guards ..very short but very disturbing.
#15. To: Zipporah, IndieTX, Christine, lodwick, Noone222, buckeye, tom007, Cynicom, Robin, ALL (#5)
I know.. we live..well did live in a democratic republic not a democracy.. democracy can be a very bad thing..
A government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.
By definition, a REPUBLIC can be (and is) controlled by a relatively small "inner circle" group. Granted the definition SOUNDS good as a way of describing what the FF had set up - but it simply isn't. Republics are COMMUNIST!
Think of it - "Union of Soviet Socialist's Republic, or The People's Republic of China... (Although since we now have in place, and practice all 10 "Planks" of Communism in this country, it could be argued that we ARE now a Republic)
An encompassing political or societal entity formed by uniting smaller or more localized entities.
Claire Wolfe
H. Jackson Brown
#16. To: tom007 (#2)
#17. To: innieway (#15)
(Edited)
The definition of a republic is: A government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.
#18. To: innieway (#15)
(Edited)
Nor did they set up a republic.
Section 4 - Republican government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
#19. To: aristeides (#17)
My Webster's dictionary gives as its first definition of "republic" the following: 1.a. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usu. a president.
Claire Wolfe
H. Jackson Brown
#20. To: innieway (#19)
#21. To: IndieTX (#9)
I wonder how she got OFF the no-fly list since hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans can not???????
#22. To: buckeye (#18)
Once accomplished, the assumption that the state, not the Creator (nor Nature) is the arbiter of rights. The people may arbitrarily grant or deny them. For example, the right to keep and bear arms.
PERMISSION granted by the State to do something which would OTHERWISE be illegal, unlawful, a tort, or a trespass.
Claire Wolfe
H. Jackson Brown
#23. To: aristeides (#20)
If your point is that the difference between a monarchy and a republic is only technical, I quite agree.
Claire Wolfe
H. Jackson Brown
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest