PDA

View Full Version : The War on the American People




Danke
04-21-2015, 10:23 PM
Battlefield America: The war on the American people



John W. Whitehead
The Rutherford Institute (https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/battlefield_america_the_war_on_the_american_people )





"A government which will turn its tanks upon its people, for any reason, is a government with a taste of blood and a thirst for power and must either be smartly rebuked, or blindly obeyed in deadly fear."—John Salter





We have entered into a particularly dismal chapter in the American narrative, one that shifts us from a swashbuckling tale of adventure into a bone-chilling horror story.

As I document in my new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People (http://www.amazon.com/Battlefield-America-War-American-People/dp/1590793099/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8), "we the people" have now come full circle, from being held captive by the British police state to being held captive by the American police state. In between, we have charted a course from revolutionaries fighting for our independence and a free people establishing a new nation to pioneers and explorers, braving the wilderness and expanding into new territories.

Where we went wrong, however, was in allowing ourselves to become enthralled with and then held hostage by a military empire in bondage to a corporate state (the very definition of fascism). No longer would America hold the moral high ground as a champion of freedom and human rights. Instead, in the pursuit of profit, our overlords succumbed to greed, took pleasure in inflicting pain, exported torture, and imported the machinery of war, transforming the American landscape into a battlefield, complete with military personnel, tactics and weaponry.

To our dismay, we now find ourselves scrambling for a foothold as our once rock-solid constitutional foundation crumbles beneath us. And no longer can we rely on the president, Congress, the courts, or the police to protect us from wrongdoing.

Indeed, they have come to embody all that is wrong with America.

For instance, how does a man who is relatively healthy when taken into custody by police lapse into a coma and die while under their supervision (http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/19/us/baltimore-freddie-gray-death/)? What kind of twisted logic allows a police officer to use a police car to run down an American citizen (http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/16/us/arizona-police-run-over-suspect/) and justifies it in the name of permissible deadly force? And what country are we living in where the police can beat, shoot, choke, taser and tackle American citizens, all with the protection of the courts?

Certainly, the Constitution's safeguards against police abuse means nothing when government agents can crash through your door, terrorize your children, shoot your dogs (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/texas-calls-dogs-kissing-noises-killing-article-1.1978648), and jail you on any number of trumped of charges, and you have little say in the matter. For instance, San Diego police, responding to a domestic disturbance call on a Sunday morning, showed up at the wrong address, only to shoot the homeowner's 6-year-old service dog (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/san-diego-kills-pet-dog-knocking-wrong-door-owner-article-1.2154428) in the head.

Rubbing salt in the wound, it's often the unlucky victim of excessive police force who ends up being charged with wrongdoing. Although 16-year-old Thai Gurule was charged with resisting arrest and strangling and assaulting police officers, a circuit judge found that it was actually the three officers who unlawfully stopped, tackled, punched, kneed, tasered and yanked his hair (http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2015/03/judge_rules_portland_teen_xxxx.html) who were at fault. Thankfully, bystander cell phone videos undermined police accounts, which were described as "works of fiction."

Not even our children are being spared (http://fusion.net/story/120936/its-time-to-talk-about-the-role-of-police-in-our-public-schools/) the blowback from a growing police presence. As one juvenile court judge noted in testimony to Congress, although having police on public school campuses did not make the schools any safer, it did result in large numbers of students being arrested for misdemeanors (http://fusion.net/story/120936/its-time-to-talk-about-the-role-of-police-in-our-public-schools/) such as school fights and disorderly conduct. One 11-year-old autistic Virginia student was charged with disorderly conduct and felony assault after kicking a trashcan and resisting a police officer's attempt to handcuff him (http://www.wset.com/story/28792211/judge-finds-lynchburg-middle-schooler-with-autism-guilty-on-criminal-charges). A 14-year-old student was tasered by police (http://wtvr.com/2015/04/16/elko-midle-student-taser/), suspended and charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest and trespassing after he failed to obey a teacher's order to be the last student to exit the classroom.

There is no end to the government's unmitigated gall in riding roughshod over the rights of the citizenry, whether in matters of excessive police powers, militarized police, domestic training drills, SWAT team raids, surveillance, property rights, overcriminalization, roadside strip searches, profit-driven fines and prison sentences, etc.

The president can now direct the military to detain, arrest and secretly execute (http://reason.com/archives/2015/04/16/can-the-president-kill-americans#.vgodno:EPJ9) American citizens. These are the powers of an imperial dictator, not an elected official bound by the rule of law. For the time being, Barack Obama wears the executioner's robe, but you can rest assured that this mantle will be worn by whomever occupies the Oval Office in the future.

A representative government means nothing when the average citizen has little to no access to their elected officials, while corporate lobbyists enjoy a revolving door relationship with everyone from the President on down. Indeed, while members of Congress hardly work for the taxpayer (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-congress-any-more-productive-than-it-used-to-be/), they work hard at being wooed by corporations, which spend more to lobby our elected representatives (http://www.vox.com/2015/4/20/8455235/congress-lobbying-money-statistic) than we spend on their collective salaries. For that matter, getting elected is no longer the high point it used to be. As one congressman noted, for many elected officials, "Congress is no longer a destination but a journey... [to a] more lucrative job as a K Street lobbyist (http://www.vox.com/2015/4/20/8455235/congress-lobbying-money-statistic)... It's become routine to see members of Congress drop their seat in Congress like a hot rock when a particularly lush vacancy opens up."

As for the courts, they have long since ceased being courts of justice. Instead, they have become courts of order, largely marching in lockstep with the government's dictates, all the while helping to increase the largesse of government coffers. It's called for-profit justice, and it runs the gamut of all manner of financial incentives in which the courts become cash cows for communities looking to make an extra buck. As journalist Chris Albin-Lackey details (http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/ExclusiveCommentary.aspx?id=043828da-1c12-4066-8ca4-1e00f0d570b8), "They deploy a crushing array of fines, court costs, and other fees to harvest revenues from minor offenders that these communities cannot or do not want to raise through taxation." In this way, says Albin-Lackey, "A resident of Montgomery, Alabama who commits a simple noise violation faces only a $20 fine—but also a whopping $257 in court costs and user fees (http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/ExclusiveCommentary.aspx?id=043828da-1c12-4066-8ca4-1e00f0d570b8) should they seek to have their day in court."

As for the rest—the schools, the churches, private businesses, service providers, nonprofits and your fellow citizens—many are also marching in lockstep with the police state. This is what is commonly referred to as community policing. After all, the police can't be everywhere. So how do you police a nation when your population outnumbers your army of soldiers? How do you carry out surveillance on a nation when there aren't enough cameras, let alone viewers, to monitor every square inch of the country 24/7? How do you not only track but analyze the transactions, interactions and movements of every person within the United States? The answer is simpler than it seems: You persuade the citizenry to be your eyes and ears.

It's a brilliant ploy, with the added bonus that while the citizenry remains focused on and distrustful of each other, they're incapable of focusing on more definable threats that fall closer to home—namely, the government and its militarized police. In this way, we're seeing a rise in the incidence of Americans being reported for growing vegetables in their front yard, keeping chickens in their back yard, letting their kids walk to the playground alone, and voicing anti-government sentiments. For example, after Shona Banda's son defended the use of medical marijuana during a presentation at school (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/04/17/state-seizes-11-year-old-arrests-his-mother-after-he-defends-medical-marijuana-during-a-school-presentation/?postshare=5691429288089079), school officials alerted the police and social services, and the 11-year-old was interrogated, taken into custody by social workers, had his home raided by police and his mother arrested.

Now it may be that we have nothing to worry about. Perhaps the government really does have our best interests at heart. Perhaps covert domestic military training drills such as Jade Helm (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/03/31/why-the-new-special-operations-exercise-freaking-out-the-internet-is-no-big-deal/) really are just benign exercises to make sure our military is prepared for any contingency. As the Washington Post describes the operation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/03/31/why-the-new-special-operations-exercise-freaking-out-the-internet-is-no-big-deal/):



The mission is vast both geographically and strategically: Elite service members from all four branches of the U.S. military will launch an operation this summer in which they will operate covertly among the U.S. public and travel from state to state in military aircraft. Texas, Utah and a section of southern California are labeled as hostile territory, and New Mexico isn't much friendlier.




Now I don't believe in worrying over nothing, but it's safe to say that the government has not exactly shown itself to be friendly in recent years, nor have its agents shown themselves to be cognizant of the fact that they are civilians who answer to the citizenry, rather than the other way around.

Whether or not the government plans to impose some form of martial law in the future remains to be seen, but there can be no denying that we're being accustomed to life in a military state. The malls may be open for business, the baseball stadiums may be packed, and the news anchors may be twittering nonsense about the latest celebrity foofa, but those are just distractions from what is really taking place: the transformation of America into a war zone.

Trust me, if it looks like a battlefield (armored tanks on the streets, militarized police in metro stations, surveillance cameras everywhere), sounds like a battlefield (SWAT team raids nightly, sound cannons to break up large assemblies of citizens), and acts like a battlefield (police shooting first and asking questions later, intimidation tactics, and involuntary detentions), it's a battlefield.

Indeed, what happened in Ocala, Florida, is a good metaphor for what's happening across the country: Sheriff's deputies, dressed in special ops uniforms and riding in an armored tank on a public road, pulled a 23-year-old man over and issued a warning violation to him after he gave them the finger (http://www.ocala.com/article/20150413/ARTICLES/150419881?p=all&tc=pgall). The man, Lucas Jewell, defended his actions as a free speech expression of his distaste for militarized police.

Translation: "We the people" are being hijacked on the highway by government agents with little knowledge of or regard for the Constitution, who are hyped up on the power of their badge, outfitted for war, eager for combat, and taking a joy ride—on taxpayer time and money—in a military tank that has no business being on American soil.

Rest assured, unless we slam on the brakes, this runaway tank will soon be charting a new course through terrain that bears no resemblance to land of our forefathers, where freedom meant more than just the freedom to exist and consume what the corporate powers dish out.

Rod Serling, one of my longtime heroes and the creator of The Twilight Zone, understood all too well the danger of turning a blind eye to evil in our midst, the "things that scream for a response." As Serling warned, "if we don't listen to that scream - and if we don't respond to it - we may well wind up sitting amidst our own rubble, looking for the truck that hit us - or the bomb that pulverized us. Get the license number of whatever it was that destroyed the dream. And I think we will find that the vehicle was registered in our own name."

If you haven't managed to read the writing on the wall yet, the war has begun.


http://www.sott.net/article/295520-Battlefield-America-The-war-on-the-American-people

HVACTech
04-21-2015, 10:51 PM
Today's Americans have forgotten the basics.
or, it has been edited out of their conscience. same difference.

why do I have to explain to them, that anyone who believes in Limited Government is a MinArchist?

why do the pure hardcore Anarchists of RPF's, HB is chief among them...
argue with me about the need to protect ourselves from the statists?

Christopher A. Brown
04-21-2015, 11:08 PM
Today's Americans have forgotten the basics.
or, it has been edited out of their conscience. same difference.

why do I have to explain to them, that anyone who believes in Limited Government is a MinArchist?

why do the pure hardcore Anarchists of RPF's, HB is chief among them...
argue with me about the need to protect ourselves from the statists?

From my long examination of the problem, the state is not exactly the problem. The state has been infiltrated, and that is the problem.

If a structure of collective control exists, there are groups that will work to infiltrate it. Accordingly, do we focus on eliminating structures of collective control, or do we learn to understand methods of infiltration?

I would propose that doing both is a very good idea. Simply because the groups that work to infiltrate collective control when it is present, will, when it's not, they instead collude to take control.

The methods of infiltration and collusion are very similar. Free and independent people understand them and USE Them to protect from infiltration or controlling collusion AND to enhance the benefits of independence.

What is interesting is that our dominant state, the federal government has an anarchical control built in where the tyranny of the masses can rule, IF it is parallel to constitutional intent.

Ironically, the law and military are both, supposedly dedicated to up holding the constitution, or at least they say so.

All that said, is it time to give up on the constitution because the government/state which is supposed to be under it has been infiltrated? I think not, such would be premature.

HVACTech
04-22-2015, 12:04 AM
From my long examination of the problem, the state is not exactly the problem. The state has been infiltrated, and that is the problem.

If a structure of collective control exists, there are groups that will work to infiltrate it. Accordingly, do we focus on eliminating structures of collective control, or do we learn to understand methods of infiltration?

I would propose that doing both is a very good idea. Simply because the groups that work to infiltrate collective control when it is present, will, when it's not, collude to take control.

The methods of infiltration and collusion are very similar. Free and independent people understand them an USE Them to protect from infiltration or controlling collusion AND to enhance the benefits of independence.

What is interesting is that our dominant state, the federal government has an anarchical control built in where the tyranny of the masses can rule, IF it is parallel to constitutional intent.

Ironically, the law and military are both, supposedly dedicated to up holding the constitution, or at least they say so.

All that said, is it time to give up on the constitution because the government/state which is supposed to be under it has been infiltrated? I think not, such would be premature.


From my long examination of the problem, the state is not exactly the problem. The state has been infiltrated, and that is the problem.

I agree, this is why the founders included representatives in our Republic. they understood the need for a "state" they also understood it needs slapped from time to time.

the founders understood that the statists would eventually infiltrate the state.

they also gave us, (the people) the tools to kick them out. our job is to show the people how to use them.

most people today, even congressmen and senators cannot accurately define what the founders intent was.
we probably need a thread on that very subject...

:)

A Son of Liberty
04-22-2015, 05:07 AM
the founders understood that the statists would eventually infiltrate the state.

http://i.imgur.com/5BBWoGt.gif

paleocon1
04-22-2015, 07:47 AM
How are the above thugs terrorising a bit of 1970's NYC different from ANY government? Scale of operation? Quality of their suits? Lack of University Degrees?

Christopher A. Brown
04-22-2015, 08:29 AM
I agree, this is why the founders included representatives in our Republic. they understood the need for a "state" they also understood it needs slapped from time to time.

the founders understood that the statists would eventually infiltrate the state.

they also gave us, (the people) the tools to kick them out. our job is to show the people how to use them.

most people today, even congressmen and senators cannot accurately define what the founders intent was.
we probably need a thread on that very subject...

:)

I've tried to get such threads going. Their failure to draw attention was at the root of my awareness that this, and every forum is populated by a majority of covert infiltrators working to manipulate perceptions. Or by people that have been influenced one way or another by the infiltrations.

Certainly any normal human being wants to live and be free. You refer to statists, they would be humans afraid of freedom or hating freedom, therefore
fully ready to distract from any information or effort which might lead to freedom.

Those influenced by infiltrations are either deceived completely enough to not believe anything is real except for the statist game of political play, or too afraid of the statists power to observe their dissent and effort; making them vulnerable; to secure their freedoms, to take part in discussion effective to creating unity upon action which will secure such freedoms.

I was here more than a year ago trying to institute a method for the people to separate themselves from the infiltrators or infiltrated. It was based in constitutional intent.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?932-Only-Sincere-Americans-Accept-The-Root-Purpose-Of-Free-Speech

As you can see the thread has been hacked up and reconstituted and converted to a blog. Originally it was 14 pages if I recall correctly. It exposed a number of infiltrators. About 2 weeks ago I posted it. Since then it's been converted.

At any time we could begin agreeing and accepting the ultimate purpose of free speech in order to dispel the stigma the sincere might have so they can feel confident in posting questions or acceptance. But it's become very clear to me that the sincere are a minority here, so we might get a dozen or so, if allowed to continue.

muh_roads
04-22-2015, 09:20 AM
I agree, this is why the founders included representatives in our Republic. they understood the need for a "state" they also understood it needs slapped from time to time.

the founders understood that the statists would eventually infiltrate the state.

they also gave us, (the people) the tools to kick them out. our job is to show the people how to use them.

most people today, even congressmen and senators cannot accurately define what the founders intent was.
we probably need a thread on that very subject...

:)

The founders clearly didn't have the insight when it came to corporatism and all the regulatory capture we live under.

fisharmor
04-22-2015, 10:01 AM
The founders clearly didn't have the insight when it came to corporatism and all the regulatory capture we live under.

I haven't read much about Adams or Hamilton that didn't lead me directly to the conclusion that they knew everything about corporatism and regulatory capture, and were actively and knowingly working in favor of it.

With that, I'll put forth my as-yet-unanswered question of 2015: Please let us all know when minarchism has existed in the form you all expect us to achieve.

'Cause your founding fathers were actively working against it. Centralizing state power was the express purpose of the US Constitution you all support.

Ender
04-22-2015, 10:30 AM
I haven't read much about Adams or Hamilton that didn't lead me directly to the conclusion that they knew everything about corporatism and regulatory capture, and were actively and knowingly working in favor of it.

With that, I'll put forth my as-yet-unanswered question of 2015: Please let us all know when minarchism has existed in the form you all expect us to achieve.

'Cause your founding fathers were actively working against it. Centralizing state power was the express purpose of the US Constitution you all support.

Yep.

The Constitution was a coup. It was designed to take over the Articles of Confederation and give power to a central government. This was the Hamiltonian plan from Day One. Many states were afraid of the Constitution which is why the Bill of Rights was inserted.

We can now see how well that worked.

Anti Federalist
04-22-2015, 06:48 PM
Yep.

The Constitution was a coup. It was designed to take over the Articles of Confederation and give power to a central government. This was the Hamiltonian plan from Day One. Many states were afraid of the Constitution which is why the Bill of Rights was inserted.

We can now see how well that worked.

The Anti Federalists were right. ;)

Anti Federalist
04-22-2015, 06:51 PM
I've tried to get such threads going. Their failure to draw attention was at the root of my awareness that this, and every forum is populated by a majority of covert infiltrators working to manipulate perceptions. Or by people that have been influenced one way or another by the infiltrations.

Certainly any normal human being wants to live and be free. You refer to statists, they would be humans afraid of freedom or hating freedom, therefore
fully ready to distract from any information or effort which might lead to freedom.

Those influenced by infiltrations are either deceived completely enough to not believe anything is real except for the statist game of political play, or too afraid of the statists power to observe their dissent and effort; making them vulnerable; to secure their freedoms, to take part in discussion effective to creating unity upon action which will secure such freedoms.

I was here more than a year ago trying to institute a method for the people to separate themselves from the infiltrators or infiltrated. It was based in constitutional intent.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?932-Only-Sincere-Americans-Accept-The-Root-Purpose-Of-Free-Speech

As you can see the thread has been hacked up and reconstituted and converted to a blog. Originally it was 14 pages if I recall correctly. It exposed a number of infiltrators. About 2 weeks ago I posted it. Since then it's been converted.

At any time we could begin agreeing and accepting the ultimate purpose of free speech in order to dispel the stigma the sincere might have so they can feel confident in posting questions or acceptance. But it's become very clear to me that the sincere are a minority here, so we might get a dozen or so, if allowed to continue.


REV. Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall not be abridged and be first accessible for the unity of the people with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress shall see that nothing abridges freedom of the press in its service to the unity of the people; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances or defense of this constitution.

So any speech that serves to disunify gets banned.

And who defines that?

Deborah K
04-22-2015, 07:09 PM
The founders clearly didn't have the insight when it came to corporatism and all the regulatory capture we live under.

The government is so inextricably enmeshed with private industry, I don't know how we would even begin to separate them. The revolving door, for example, between the pharmaceutical, chemical, and agricultural companies is moving so fast it's almost a blur. And companies write checks to both sides of the aisle, and the regulatory agencies maintain deliberate ignorance of what is going on because their jobs depend on the political people being supported by the industries writing the checks.

How do we untangle such a mess?

Ender
04-22-2015, 07:51 PM
The Anti Federalists were right. ;)

Absolutely- you picked the right name, Dude. :)

HVACTech
04-22-2015, 08:07 PM
Absolutely- you picked the right name, Dude. :)

you will need to discuss this with Osan.
he vehemently disagrees.


The Ninth Amendment is the truer utility of the Constitution. The Tenth is an abomination in diametric harness of everything for which the Ninth stands. The Tenth is the destroyer of human freedom in America.

perhaps, you will decipher this for me? :)

(it was the anti-federalists who demanded that the 9th and 10th be included)

Ender
04-22-2015, 08:41 PM
you will need to discuss this with Osan.
he vehemently disagrees.



perhaps, you will decipher this for me? :)

(it was the anti-federalists who demanded that the 9th and 10th be included)


The Anti-Federalists Were Right
By Laurence M. Vance
March 5, 2007

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

~ James Madison, Federalist No. 45

History has shown this statement to be either wishful thinking or a deliberate falsehood. Regardless of which opinion you hold, the Anti-Federalists were right. They correctly predicted the unlimited power of a consolidated government under the Constitution. Not only were the Anti-Federalists right to a degree that they could never have imagined; I seriously doubt that the Federalists could have envisioned or would have approved of their new government becoming the monstrosity that it now is.

The U.S. Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787. Nine states were needed to ratify the new Constitution. On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state, and the Confederation Congress began making plans for the transition to government under the Constitution. Virginia ratified the document on June 25, 1788, and New York followed on July 26, 1788. On March 4, 1789 — 218 years ago yesterday — the new Constitution took effect, replacing the Articles of Confederation that had been in force since 1781. North Carolina did not ratify the Constitution until November 21, 1789, and Rhode Island not until May 29, 1790.

Although the arguments of the Anti-Federalists against the new Constitution were numerous and varied, there is one thing that underlies them all: The danger to liberty from a strong central government.

The term Anti-Federalists is a misnomer. A federal government is a decentralized government. Yet, those who called themselves Federalists wanted a stronger central government. Writing in the (Baltimore) Maryland Gazette in 1788, an Anti-Federalist who called himself “A Farmer” clearly recognized this abuse of language:

There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together . . . this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution. This abuse of language does not help the cause; every degree of imposition serves only to irritate, but can never convince. They are national men, and their opponents, or at least a great majority of them, are federal, in the only true and strict sense of the word.

The question is a simple one, as stated by the Anti-Federalist “Brutus” in his first essay in the New York Journal in 1787:

The first question that presents itself on the subject is, whether a confederated government be the best for the United States or not? Or in other words, whether the thirteen United States should be reduced to one great republic, governed by one legislature, and under the direction of one executive and judicial; or whether they should continue thirteen confederated republics, under the direction and controul of a supreme federal head for certain defined national purposes only? This enquiry is important, because, although the government reported by the convention does not go to a perfect and entire consolidation, yet it approaches so near to it, that it must, if executed, certainly and infallibly terminate in it.

To put it briefly, the Anti-Federalists concluded that the Constitution granted too much power to the federal government.

“Cato” wrote a series of letters that appeared in the New York Journal between September 1787 and January 1788. This is from his third letter:

The recital, or premises on which the new form of government is erected, declares a consolidation or union of all the thirteen parts, or states, into one great whole, under the form of the United States, for all the various and important purposes therein set forth. — But whoever seriously considers the immense extent of territory comprehended within the limits of the United States, together with the variety of its climates, productions, and commerce, the difference of extent, and number of inhabitants in all; the dissimilitude of interest, morals, and politics, in almost every one, will receive it as an intuitive truth, that a consolidated republican form of government therein, can never form a perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to you and your posterity.

“Centinel” wrote a series of letters that appeared in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer in late 1787 and early 1788. Here are selections from his eleventh, twelfth, and sixteenth letters:

If anarchy, therefore, were the inevitable consequence of rejecting the new constitution, it would be infinitely better to incur it; for even then there would be at least the change of a good government rising out of licentiousness.

That investigation into the nature and construction of the new constitution, which the conspirators have so long and zealously struggled against, has, notwithstanding their partial success, so far taken place as to ascertain the enormity of their criminality. That system which was pompously displayed as the perfection of government, proves upon examination to be the most odious system of tyranny that was ever projected, a many headed hydra of despotism, whose complication and various evils would be infinitely more oppressive and afflictive than the scourge of any single tyrant.

The new constitution instead of being the panacea or cure of every grievance so delusively represented by its advocates will be found upon examination like Pandora’s box, replete with every evil.

The “Federal Farmer” wrote for the Poughkeepsie Country Journal in 1787. His letters were soon afterward published in pamphlet form. This is from his first letter:

The plan of government now proposed is evidently calculated totally to change, in time, our condition as a people. Instead of being thirteen republics, under a federal head, it is clearly designed to make us one consolidated government. . . . Whether such a change can ever be effected, in any manner; whether it can be effected without convulsions and civil wars; whether such a change will not totally destroy the liberties of this country — time only can determine.

Like those of Centinel, the essays of an “Old Whig” appeared in Philadelphia’s Independent Gazetteer in late 1787 and early 1788. This is from his second essay:

The new constitution vests Congress with such unlimited powers as ought never to be entrusted to any men or body of men.

The essays of an unknown Anti-Federalist who used the name of “John DeWitt” were published in the Boston American Herald in late 1787. This is from his third essay:

Upon an attentive examination you can pronounce it nothing less, than a government which in a few years, will degenerate to a compleat Aristocracy, armed with powers unnecessary in any case to bestow, and which in its vortex swallows up every other Government upon the Continent. In short, my fellow-citizens, it can be said to be nothing less than a hasty stride to Universal Empire in this Western World, flattering, very flattering to young ambitious minds, but fatal to the liberties of the people.

The “Impartial Examiner” wrote essays for the Virginia Independent Chronicle in 1788. This is from his first essay:

But surely, when this doctrine comes to be applied to the proposed federal constitution, which is framed with such large and extensive powers, as to transfer the individual sovereignty from each state to the aggregate body, — a constitution, which delegates to Congress an authority to interfere with, and restrain the legislatures of every state — invests them with supreme powers of legislation throughout all the states — annihilates the separate independency of each; and, in short — swallows up and involves in the plenitude of its jurisdiction all other powers whatsoever: — I shall not be taxed with arrogance in declaring such an argument to be fallacious.

Patrick Henry (1736—1799) made several speeches against adopting the Constitution in the Virginia ratifying convention in 1788. This is from his speech of June 5:

Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is as radical, if in this transition, our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the States be relinquished: And cannot we plainly see, that this is actually the case?

This is from his speech of June 9:

A number of characters, of the greatest eminence in this country, object to this government for its consolidating tendency. This is not imaginary. It is a formidable reality. If consolidation proves to be as mischievous to this country as it has been to other countries, what will the poor inhabitants of this country do? This government will operate like an ambuscade. It will destroy the state governments, and swallow the liberties of the people, without giving them previous notice.

And then there is the aforementioned Brutus; once again, from his first essay:

It is true this government is limited to certain objects, or to speak more properly, some small degree of power is still left to the states, but a little attention to the powers vested in the general government, will convince every candid man, that if it is capable of being executed, all that is reserved for the individual states must very soon be annihilated.

Those in the Pennsylvania ratification convention who objected to the proposed Constitution published The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to Their Constituents in the Pennsylvania Packet and Daily Advertiser on December 18, 1787. Here are four pertinent selections:

The powers vested in Congress by this constitution, must necessarily annihilate and absorb the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the several states, and produce from their ruins one consolidated government, which from the nature of things will be an iron banded despotism, as nothing short of the supremacy of despotic sway could connect and govern these United States under one government.

The new government will not be a confederacy of states, as it ought, but one consolidated government, founded upon the destruction of the several governments of the states.

The legislative power vested in Congress by the foregoing recited sections, is so unlimited in its nature; may be so comprehensive and boundless its exercise, that this alone would be amply sufficient to annihilate the state governments, and swallow them up in the grand vortex of general empire.

The powers vested by this constitution in Congress, will effect a consolidation of the states under one government, which even the advocates of this constitution admit, could not be done without the sacrifice of all liberty.

The Anti-federalists were right. We don’t need to return to the government of the Framers of the Constitution, we need to return to the government that the Framers destroyed. And furthermore, Constitution or no Constitution: The centralization of power is always a great evil.

All quotations from the Anti-federalists are taken from Regnery edition of The Anti-Federalists: Selected Writings and Speeches, edited by Bruce Frohnen.

And so it goes......

otherone
04-22-2015, 08:42 PM
How do we untangle such a mess?

We don't have to. The top-heavy system will collapse as the dollar collapses.

HVACTech
04-22-2015, 09:26 PM
We don't have to. The top-heavy system will collapse as the dollar collapses.

brilliant!

therefore, you pontificate passivity?

imagine that ! :p

HVACTech
04-22-2015, 09:33 PM
And so it goes......

the words of Osan.


The Ninth Amendment is the truer utility of the Constitution. The Tenth is an abomination in diametric harness of everything for which the Ninth stands. The Tenth is the destroyer of human freedom in America.

any questions?

clearly, the anti-federalists were only 1/2 right.
or did I miss something? :p

Christopher A. Brown
04-22-2015, 10:43 PM
So any speech that serves to disunify gets banned.

And who defines that?

No, speech that unifies gets promoted and natural law implied in constitutional intent gets better definition specific to creating and maintaining unity upon or around constitutional intent.

heavenlyboy34
04-22-2015, 10:53 PM
The Anti Federalists were right. ;)

FTW! :)
Anti-Federalist no. 1 (like the rest) is like a future-telling glass ball:


AntiFederalist Paper #1 – General Introduction: A Dangerous Plan of Benefit Only to The “Aristocratick Combination.”


I am pleased to see a spirit of inquiry burst the band of constraint upon the subject of the NEW PLAN for consolidating the governments of the United States, as recommended by the late Convention. If it is suitable to the GENIUS and HABITS of the citizens of these states, it will bear the strictest scrutiny. The PEOPLE are the grand inquest who have a RIGHT to judge of its merits. The hideous daemon of Aristocracy has hitherto had so much influence as to bar the channels of investigation, preclude the people from inquiry and extinguish every spark of liberal information of its qualities. At length the luminary of intelligence begins to beam its effulgent rays upon this important production; the deceptive mists cast before the eyes of the people by the delusive machinations of its INTERESTED advocates begins to dissipate, as darkness flies before the burning taper; and I dare venture to predict, that in spite of those mercenary dectaimers, the plan will have a candid and complete examination.
Those furious zealots who are for cramming it down the throats of the people, without allowing them either time or opportunity to scan or weigh it in the balance of their understandings, bear the same marks in their features as those who have been long wishing to erect an aristocracy in THIS COMMONWEALTH [of Massachusetts]. Their menacing cry is for a RIGID government, it matters little to them of what kind, provided it answers THAT description. As the plan now offered comes something near their wishes, and is the most consonant to their views of any they can hope for, they come boldly forward and DEMAND its adoption.

They brand with infamy every man who is not as determined and zealous in its favor as themselves. They cry aloud the whole must be swallowed or none at all, thinking thereby to preclude any amendment; they are afraid of having it abated of its present RIGID aspect. They have strived to overawe or seduce printers to stifle and obstruct a free discussion, and have endeavored to hasten it to a decision before the people can duty reflect upon its properties. In order to deceive them, they incessantly declare that none can discover any defect in the system but bankrupts who wish no government, and officers of the present government who fear to lose a part of their power. These zealous partisans may injure their own cause, and endanger the public tranquility by impeding a proper inquiry; the people may suspect the WHOLE to be a dangerous plan, from such COVERED and DESIGNING schemes to enforce it upon them.
Compulsive or treacherous measures to establish any government whatever, will always excite jealousy among a free people: better remain single and alone, than blindly adopt whatever a few individuals shall demand, be they ever so wise. I had rather be a free citizen of the small republic of Massachusetts, than an oppressed subject of the great American empire (http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/anti-federalist-papers/antifederalist-paper-1-general-introduction-a-dangerous-plan-of-benefit-only-to-the-aristocratick-combination#). Let all act understandingly or not at all. If we can confederate upon terms that wilt secure to us our liberties, it is an object highly desirable, because of its additional security to the whole. If the proposed plan proves such an one, I hope it will be adopted, but if it will endanger our liberties as it stands, let it be amended; in order to which it must and ought to be open to inspection and free inquiry.

The inundation of abuse that has been thrown out upon the heads of those who have had any doubts of its universal good qualities, have been so redundant, that it may not be improper to scan the characters of its most strenuous advocates. It will first be allowed that many undesigning citizens may wish its adoption from the best motives, but these are modest and silent, when compared to the greater number, who endeavor to suppress all attempts for investigation. These violent partisans are for having the people gulp down the gilded pill blindfolded, whole, and without any qualification whatever.
These consist generally, of the NOBLE order of C[incinnatu]s, holders of public securities, men of great wealth (http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/anti-federalist-papers/antifederalist-paper-1-general-introduction-a-dangerous-plan-of-benefit-only-to-the-aristocratick-combination#) and expectations of public office, Bankers and Lawyers: these with their train of dependents form the Aristocratick combination. The Lawyers in particular, keep up an incessant declamation for its adoption; like greedy gudgeons they long to satiate their voracious stomachs with the golden bait. The numerous tribunals to be erected by the new plan of consolidated empire, will find employment (http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/anti-federalist-papers/antifederalist-paper-1-general-introduction-a-dangerous-plan-of-benefit-only-to-the-aristocratick-combination#) for ten times their present numbers; these are the LOAVES AND FISHES for which they hunger. They will probably find it suited to THEIR HABITS, if not to the HABITS OF THE PEOPLE. There may be reasons for having but few of them in the State Convention, lest THEIR OWN INTEREST should be too strongly considered. The time draws near for the choice of Delegates. I hope my fellow-citizens will look well to the characters of their preference, and remember the Old Patriots of 75; they have never led them astray, nor need they fear to try them on this momentous occasion.

(emphasis added)

Does this sound familiar, folks? ;)

P.S. read the rest here (http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/anti-federalist-papers).

Christopher A. Brown
04-22-2015, 10:55 PM
The founders clearly didn't have the insight when it came to corporatism and all the regulatory capture we live under.

There is a glaring deficiency in this thread relating to collusion, infiltration and secrecy.

The framers knew of it, but it was too socially unpopular in religious society to mention if one wanted to hold political position.

Corporatism and media ganged up(read collusion, infiltration etc on gov) on constitutional principle to a degree the framers could not have foreseen. They attacked the peoples knowledge, ethics, morals and integrity.

Nearly all threads on politics suffer from that deficiency.

heavenlyboy34
04-22-2015, 11:05 PM
There is a glaring deficiency in this thread relating to collusion, infiltration and secrecy.

The framers knew of it, but it was too socially unpopular in religious society to mention if one wanted to hold political position.

Corporatism and media ganged up(read collusion, infiltration etc on gov) on constitutional principle to a degree the framers could not have foreseen. They attacked the peoples knowledge, ethics, morals and integrity.

Nearly all threads on politics suffer from that deficiency.
See the AF paper I posted above you. You're right that people in 1790 couldn't have predicted the epic scale of Amerikan Fascism and imperialism, but the Anti-Federalists were warning of the corporatist evil almost as long as the Constitution had been made available for reading.

Ender
04-22-2015, 11:12 PM
the words of Osan.



any questions?

clearly, the anti-federalists were only 1/2 right.
or did I miss something? :p

I think so.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

pcosmar
04-23-2015, 06:14 AM
Several years ago I said "Mark my words, you will see tanks on American Streets."

I take absolutely no pleasure in being correct. :(

Danke
04-23-2015, 06:53 AM
Several years ago I said "Mark my words, you will see tanks on American Streets."

I take absolutely no pleasure in being correct. :(


Told you so.

Told you ten years ago, this was going to happen.

Fuck A Bunch Of Computer Cars

Just to let you guys know, I predicted many years ago that this would eventually happen if things didn't change:


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GH68bSJXGE8

phill4paul
04-23-2015, 07:12 AM
Just to let you guys know, I predicted many years ago that this would eventually happen if things didn't change:


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GH68bSJXGE8

Press-cient.

Danke
04-23-2015, 07:20 AM
Press-cient.

Well, I admit I wasn't the only able to see this coming after the break up with Selena.

otherone
04-23-2015, 07:56 AM
brilliant!

therefore, you pontificate passivity?

imagine that ! :p

Next time I'll type with more aggression. Maybe I'll include an emoticon.

Christopher A. Brown
04-23-2015, 08:09 AM
See the AF paper I posted above you. You're right that people in 1790 couldn't have predicted the epic scale of Amerikan Fascism and imperialism, but the Anti-Federalists were warning of the corporatist evil almost as long as the Constitution had been made available for reading.

Yes, the anti-federalists new the potentials of corporatists for evil, but not the capacity to infiltrate government to the the degree it can and has. Such was the basis of their position. Somewhat shown here.


The hideous daemon of Aristocracy has hitherto had so much influence as to bar the channels of investigation, preclude the people from inquiry and extinguish every spark of liberal information of its qualities.

They knew the channels of investigation were barred, but not how. That is a permanent weakness that no contract can survive. Accordingly, the inferior structure if less potential unity can be chosen to limit the amount of power collusion can abscond with.

If they knew that, there would have been a lot more dueling going on.

Most important, is how to counter it.

Agreement by the people on prime constitutional intent that is patently obvious has the logical and constitutional basis to create a foundation of revolution that is lawful and peaceful.

The purpose of free speech has that quality. Do you notice no one tries arguing with it?

heavenlyboy34
04-23-2015, 08:51 AM
There is a glaring deficiency in this thread relating to collusion, infiltration and secrecy.

The framers knew of it, but it was too socially unpopular in religious society to mention if one wanted to hold political position.

Corporatism and media ganged up(read collusion, infiltration etc on gov) on constitutional principle to a degree the framers could not have foreseen. They attacked the peoples knowledge, ethics, morals and integrity.

Nearly all threads on politics suffer from that deficiency.

You mean in the "classical" American era, I assume. What makes you think so?

Christopher A. Brown
04-23-2015, 09:51 AM
If you refer to this,



The framers knew of it, but it was too socially unpopular in religious society to mention if one wanted to hold political position.


The collusion, infiltration and secrecy is enabled by abuses of the unconscious mind. Mind control. It starts at age 3.5 with somnambulism and controls people without their knowledge for life

The church deems the entire subject heresy. Even today such mentality controls psychology, hence our current situation. Proof here, I tested them long ago. Miserable failures.

http://algoxy.com/law/nojustice2/images/aparesponse.jpg

The paper trail actually goes on to prove that. I followed up on the C. Wickless referral and received a thoroughly incompetent response from a lackey, not even the APA.

The shit is deep today because of the social fears that the framers responded to then.

HVACTech
04-23-2015, 09:52 AM
You mean in the "classical" American era, I assume. What makes you think so?

because it is still going on today perchance?

today, "collusion, infiltration and secrecy." are colloquially known as "conspiracy theories"

Ender
04-23-2015, 09:55 AM
See the AF paper I posted above you. You're right that people in 1790 couldn't have predicted the epic scale of Amerikan Fascism and imperialism, but the Anti-Federalists were warning of the corporatist evil almost as long as the Constitution had been made available for reading.

Absolutely.

The Revolution was fought over mercantilism. The people understood very well the problems with what we now call "corporatism".

Deborah K
04-23-2015, 06:53 PM
We don't have to. The top-heavy system will collapse as the dollar collapses.

You think they don't have a system in place and ready for said collapse? I think they're counting on a collapse. I think they planned it ages ago. No one with half a brain thinks the debt can ever be paid. And as we know, debt destroys economic growth. And the dollar is based on debt. Get ready for globalization because it's coming. Their excuse for it will be mutually assured financial collapse for all nations if we don't globalize. Hide the women and children!! :eek:

HVACTech
04-23-2015, 08:02 PM
You think they don't have a system in place and ready for said collapse? I think they're counting on a collapse. I think they planned it ages ago. No one with half a brain thinks the debt can ever be paid. And as we know, debt destroys economic growth. And the dollar is based on debt. Get ready for globalization because it's coming. Their excuse for it will be mutually assured financial collapse for all nations if we don't globalize. Hide the women and children!! :eek:

pure, hard core Anarchists do NOT worry about the women and children Love.
they are pacifists, who sit back and pontificate about purity of thought processes.
I wrote this.

a MinArchist is someone who is willing to fight the fucking statists, and sees them as the enemy.
and An Anarchist is someone who prefers pacifism and endless pontification.
Osan responded.

Perhaps according to your definitions, but you never made those clear.

I cannot make my definitions any clearer. and I made them.

:)

otherone
04-23-2015, 08:25 PM
You think they don't have a system in place and ready for said collapse? I think they're counting on a collapse. I think they planned it ages ago. No one with half a brain thinks the debt can ever be paid. And as we know, debt destroys economic growth. And the dollar is based on debt. Get ready for globalization because it's coming. Their excuse for it will be mutually assured financial collapse for all nations if we don't globalize. Hide the women and children!! :eek:

Ah. I see where you're heading with this....
What don't TPTB have a contingency plan for?

HVACTech
04-23-2015, 08:50 PM
Ah. I see where you're heading with this....
What don't TPTB have a contingency plan for?

the pure, hard core Anarchists!
by golly, they are going to rise up and well....

organize! pontificate? :confused:

that! will teach them for sure!

HVACTech
04-23-2015, 08:56 PM
Ah. I see where you're heading with this....
What don't TPTB have a contingency plan for?
//

Christopher A. Brown
04-23-2015, 11:38 PM
because it is still going on today perchance?

today, "collusion, infiltration and secrecy." are colloquially known as "conspiracy theories"

Or, described with "cognitive distortions", in that case "labeling" because we are not allowed to understand how successful conspiracies are conducted.

The church began removing our ability to understand such things as soon as they started calling us heretics and burning us.

The courts enforce this secrecy, infiltration and collusion by conducting injustice when Americans try to recover some understanding to prevent war and extinction.

http://algoxy.com/law/nojustice3/cv06_comp/cv06_comp.exhib/subdengif.gif

The records subpoenaed would have proven that over 1,000 insanity actions are missing from the Santa Barbara County Superior Court records.

Understanding that insanity would have begun to understand secrecy, infiltration and collusion. They could not allow that. And Americans are conditioned to be afraid of knowing let alone understanding.

LibForestPaul
04-24-2015, 05:20 AM
I haven't read much about Adams or Hamilton that didn't lead me directly to the conclusion that they knew everything about corporatism and regulatory capture, and were actively and knowingly working in favor of it.

With that, I'll put forth my as-yet-unanswered question of 2015: Please let us all know when minarchism has existed in the form you all expect us to achieve.

'Cause your founding fathers were actively working against it. Centralizing state power was the express purpose of the US Constitution you all support.

The Constitution was a WIN for the statists...the undoing of freedom is what the Constitution IS.
Even libertarians have a hard time accepting this.

Christopher A. Brown
04-25-2015, 10:35 AM
The Constitution was a WIN for the statists...the undoing of freedom is what the Constitution IS.
Even libertarians have a hard time accepting this.

It was only a win because of the potentials of secrecy hidden by the society of the church regarding exploitation and abuse of the human unconscious mind which enable infiltrations and collusions without limit.

Accordingly, it was only the abridging of the purpose of free speech, fully implied and intended since the Declaration of Independence that the federal government could be infiltrated and taken over.

The minianarchism intended is possible IF Americans agree upon the definition of the purpose of free speech implied and intended.

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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Here us strategy that WILL get it done.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?471555-A-lawful-and-peaceful-revolution

Christopher A. Brown
04-30-2015, 11:08 PM
You think they don't have a system in place and ready for said collapse? I think they're counting on a collapse. I think they planned it ages ago. No one with half a brain thinks the debt can ever be paid. And as we know, debt destroys economic growth. And the dollar is based on debt. Get ready for globalization because it's coming. Their excuse for it will be mutually assured financial collapse for all nations if we don't globalize. Hide the women and children!! :eek:

Yes, those things appear true. The economic collapse was caused by a series of governmental and corporate banking collusions.

However, with a lawful and peaceful revolution, we might be surprised to find that a good bit of the stolen loot can be lawfully taken back. It was illegally gained.

Our I investigative agencies are currently controlled by the infiltrated government. Basically partners in crime. But, if citizens unify around prime constitutional Intent and purify state governments, amazing things can happen.

When 3/4 of the states are amending to end the abridging of the purpose of free speech within preparatory amendment, suddenly information will get to the public.

That will end the apathy created by decades of deficient news reporting. MSM will lose credibility until they begin to address the issues already brought our by and for the people. Some major news organizations and broadcast networks may fold.

But the really good thing is that the information kept secret by the infiltration into the federal government will come out in at least part. Purging the unlawful officials will mean that true prosecutions of governmental criminality can take place.

There will be some major economic relief found after that.

HVACTech
04-30-2015, 11:57 PM
The Constitution was a WIN for the statists...the undoing of freedom is what the Constitution IS.
Even libertarians have a hard time accepting this.

now that thar...

is some good stuff!


]The Constitution was a WIN for the statists...the undoing of freedom is what the Constitution IS.

HVACTech
05-01-2015, 12:06 AM
I haven't read much about Adams or Hamilton that didn't lead me directly to the conclusion that they knew everything about corporatism and regulatory capture, and were actively and knowingly working in favor of it.

With that, I'll put forth my as-yet-unanswered question of 2015: Please let us all know when minarchism has existed in the form you all expect us to achieve.

'Cause your founding fathers were actively working against it. Centralizing state power was the express purpose of the US Constitution you all support.

classic bender!


'Cause your founding fathers were actively working against it. Centralizing state power was the express purpose of the US Constitution you all support

"ender is just below.

Suzanimal
05-04-2015, 01:36 PM
Can't embed, you can listen at link.


The War on the American People
John Whitehead talks to Lew Rockwell about the Beast.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/the-war-on-the-american-people/

heavenlyboy34
05-04-2015, 01:47 PM
The Constitution was a WIN for the statists...the undoing of freedom is what the Constitution IS.
Even libertarians have a hard time accepting this.
Thread winner.