Kim Jong Il may be dead,but his illustrious great spirit lives on in police state USA

[poncho]

Funny you should mention that. I recently finish the most thorough study of Lincoln and the causes of the War that I ever did and am more convinced than ever that his real objective was the destruction of the Constitution and the founding of a Hamiltonian central government. It was the American version of the French Revolution.

After all the reading and research it came down to understanding two basic documents (speeches) - Lincoln's first inaugural address in which he discounts the role of the Supreme Court and the Constitution itself and gives majority opinion the highest office; and Jeff Davis' inaugural address in which he clearly establishes the fact that the North had violated the provisions of the contract (Constitution), rendering it null and void, and unenforceable. Lincoln claimed that the Union (note, not the Constitution) is an ever-lasting contract from which the parties thereto can never withdraw, regardless of circumstances, and was to be ruled by a majority (meaning, the north).

Interesting trivia: How many people know that Lincoln ordered the arrest of the man who swore him into office (who happened to be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court)?

How many people know this?


[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Many patriots these days lament that the Republican Party has “lost its way” and “gone wrong.” It has “diverged” from the fiscally responsible, small government philosophy of Republican heroes like Robert Taft whom Eisenhower’s handlers finagled out of the nomination for President in 1952. We are told that is why today’s Republican Establishment hates Dr. Ron Paul with such a passion; that they hate him because, like Taft, he is the quintessential Republican. Patriots who say that are mistaken, of course. The reason the Republican Establishment hates Dr. Paul is precisely that he is not a traditional, mainstream Republican, that his platform of freedom is an aberration. The Republican Party didn’t “go wrong,” didn’t “go left.” [/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]It has been wrong from the beginning, from the day it was founded. From the beginning, the Republican Party has worked without deviation for bigger, more imperial government, for higher taxes, for more wars, for more totalitarianism. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]From the beginning, the Republican Party has been Red. [/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Why? [/FONT]

READ ON . . .​

 

[J.D.]

Yeah that's a sickness called Malthusianism. The idea that the elite class was born to rule over the rest of us like we're their cattle. To be culled when our numbers become to great, for our own good of course.

Look into Thomas Malthus for more on it. Kings and nobles have thought that way since there have been kings and nobles. We're just to dense to understand that we've been conditioned to believe (by the Malthusians) down the centuries that it's our duty to be obediant to these sociopaths.

I don't believe it's my duty to serve this garbage and I don't believe it's the duty of anyone here to serve them either. Unfortunately the majority of people here seem to disagree with me about it, adamantly.

I did a short paper while in college on Malthus' views of poor people and poverty. But I didn't see the connection between his theories and modern population control until now. Thanks for that enlightenment.

 

[J.D.]

How many people know this?


[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Many patriots these days lament that the Republican Party has “lost its way” and “gone wrong.” It has “diverged” from the fiscally responsible, small government philosophy of Republican heroes like Robert Taft whom Eisenhower’s handlers finagled out of the nomination for President in 1952. We are told that is why today’s Republican Establishment hates Dr. Ron Paul with such a passion; that they hate him because, like Taft, he is the quintessential Republican. Patriots who say that are mistaken, of course. The reason the Republican Establishment hates Dr. Paul is precisely that he is not a traditional, mainstream Republican, that his platform of freedom is an aberration. The Republican Party didn’t “go wrong,” didn’t “go left.” [/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]It has been wrong from the beginning, from the day it was founded. From the beginning, the Republican Party has worked without deviation for bigger, more imperial government, for higher taxes, for more wars, for more totalitarianism. [/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]From the beginning, the Republican Party has been Red. [/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Why? [/FONT]​

READ ON . . .​

I've read articles like that for years (used to be a daily visitor to newswithviews) but thought them just too fantastic to be believed. My awakening came with the vicious lying attacks on Ron Paul by Fox News. Fox could have kept me in their darkness if they hadn't torn at the flesh like wolves. But the game is over now.

 

[poncho]

I've read articles like that for years (used to be a daily visitor to newswithviews) but thought them just too fantastic to be believed. My awakening came with the vicious lying attacks on Ron Paul by Fox News. Fox could have kept me in their darkness if they hadn't torn at the flesh like wolves. But the game is over now.

Well, after being fed a steady diet of lies the truth is going to taste funny at first. It's an acquired taste I reckon. Most spit it out first time it touches their tongue. People in these here parts won't get within a mile of it. I think they are afraid that if they know the truth and admit it they might have to be responsible for more than own personal interests.

 

[poncho]

Odds of Dying in a Terrorist Attack

I'm posting this for Sapper and Targus and all those who buy into the hype and fearmongering that terrorism is our most dangerous threat. Let's put things in perspective.

After 9/11, the fear of another attack on U.S. soil cleanly supplanted the fear of having one's (___) chopped off by a vengeful lover in the pantheon of irrational American fears. While we're constantly being told that another attack is imminent and that radical Islamic fundamentalists are two steps away from establishing a caliphate in Branson, Missouri, just how close are they? How do the odds of dying in a terrorist attack stack up against the odds of dying in other unfortunate situations? Well, let's take a look.

The following ratios were compiled using data from 2004 National Safety Council (NSC) Estimates, a report based on data from The National Center for Health Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau. In addition, 2003 mortality data from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) was used.

CONTINUE . . .

Here's a ferinstance.

You are eight times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist

 

[Sapper Woody]

You are eight times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist

You're welcome.

 

[poncho]

You're welcome.

For what? Oh I get it. You think that by pretending to be fighting terrorism you've reduced the chances of citizens getting killed by one.

Yer a hoot Sapper. Your service to the globalists had nothing to with it. Well, maybe that's not exactly the case. You're sevring the globalists has probably helped increase the odds of citizens being killed by a police officer by believing in all the hype and fearmongering more than the constitution. You seem to have your priorities all mixed up. You're supposed to protect and defend the constitution not those who are burning it and increasing the chances of citizens being killed by a terrorist attack as they do it.

Like your UN blue hat badge btw. You must be very proud of it. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[targus]

I'm posting this for Sapper and Targus and all those who buy into the hype and fearmongering that terrorism is our most dangerous threat. Let's put things in perspective.

I find it to be quite funny that the only conspiracy theory that poncho won't buy into is that radical Muslims want to kill U.S citizens.

 

[poncho]

I find it to be quite funny that the only conspiracy theory that poncho won't buy into is that radical Muslims want to kill U.S citizens.

I find it strange that you'd keep saying this after I've said I do believe there are radical muslims that want to kill U.S. citizens. We agree on that.

Let me repeat. We agree on that point and always have.

The difference is in our belief of why they want to kill U.S. citizens.

Evidently you believe they want to kill us because of our freedoms and equal rights for women. Where as I believe our long history of meddling in their affairs, invading their countries, occupying their lands and holy places, killing, maiming and displacing them by the hundreds of thousands by using proxy terrorist groups (see Iran 1953 as one example) and outright slaughter not to mention how we use one muslim nation as a proxy force against another (see Iran/Iraq war) is why they want to kill us.

Of course the other difference is that my belief is backed by more than a hundred years of history and numerous documented examples of terrorism we (western nations) have used against muslim nations. Your belief apparently comes from irrational fear (see odds of being killed by a terrorist attack) and round the clock government/media hype and propaganda as pushed by the corporately funded think tanks (see the nightly corporate news).

 

[NiteShift]

Where as I believe our long history of meddling in their affairs, invading their countries, occupying their lands and holy places

What holy places did we occupy in Sep 2001? The Saudi government requested US troops when Saddam invaded Kuwait, and they were strictly required to stay within defined areas.

Oh wait I guess we should have consulted with Osama bin Laden first. He didn't like it.

 

[Sapper Woody]

For what? Oh I get it. You think that by pretending to be fighting terrorism you've reduced the chances of citizens getting killed by one.

When was the last time we were attacked? Let's see... oh yeah! Before we started fighting terrorists. Since then...hmmm. Nothing.

You're also more likely to die in a car accident driving in Chicago than to get killed by a terrorist over here. Does that mean there are no terrorists over here? If not, then who killed the three men I just saw get loaded onto a C130 3 nights ago?

 

[freeatlast]

This is just another step towards a military take over sponsored by the government.

 

[Crabtownboy]

If we become safe from terrorists by becoming a police state, then who will protect us from the police?

Actually even in a police state you are not safe from terrorists. In fact, you are probably be in more danger of being killed by a terrorists as there will be more terrorists fighting against the police state.

China is a good example, they just keep pretty quiet about what is happening inside their country ... but with research you can gleam some information.

Then there is the domestic violence against the corruption always found in a police state. Again check on the village protests in China. It is a huge problem.

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-....,cf.osb&fp=868032395a21deba&biw=1280&bih=710

 

[Sapper Woody]

Actually even in a police state you are not safe from terrorists. In fact, you are probably be in more danger of being killed by a terrorists as there will be more terrorists fighting against the police state.

You need to know the definition of a "terrorist". A person isn't a terrorist simply because they fight against the government. We could have a full resistance against the US government, and that wouldn't automatically make them terrorists. A terrorist is one who tries to control the general populace by fear, typically by threats/acts of kidnapping and murder.

A coupe is not necessarily terrorism. Terrorism in any way/shape/form is wrong. However, government overthrows are not necessarily wrong. Probably a big mistake, but not necessarily wrong.

 

[Crabtownboy]

You need to know the definition of a "terrorist". A person isn't a terrorist simply because they fight against the government. We could have a full resistance against the US government, and that wouldn't automatically make them terrorists. A terrorist is one who tries to control the general populace by fear, typically by threats/acts of kidnapping and murder.

A coupe is not necessarily terrorism. Terrorism in any way/shape/form is wrong. However, government overthrows are not necessarily wrong. Probably a big mistake, but not necessarily wrong.

That is why I also spoke about domestic violence. It really does not matter whether the person or group is called terrorist or not. If they kill me I am dead regardless of what they are called. My point was that by taking away people's freedom to give more safety is an illusion. In the long run it puts them in more danger both from the government and from dissatisfied people.

 

[poncho]

You need to know the definition of a "terrorist". A person isn't a terrorist simply because they fight against the government. We could have a full resistance against the US government, and that wouldn't automatically make them terrorists. A terrorist is one who tries to control the general populace by fear, typically by threats/acts of kidnapping and murder.

A coupe is not necessarily terrorism. Terrorism in any way/shape/form is wrong. However, government overthrows are not necessarily wrong. Probably a big mistake, but not necessarily wrong.

I think you're the one who needs to learn the definition of terrorism here.

According to our government (your boss) we're all terrorists. Read their documents Sapper ole buddie. They've been calling us that for awhile now. Where have you been anyway? Oh you've been fighting those guys we support over there in Libya what's their name again? Al Qaeda that's it. Why do you think your boss want's the power to detain us indefinately or at least until the endless "war on terrorism" ends without due process? Why do you think your boss wants the power to murder us in our beds without due process?

Because your boss loves us and seeks only to protect us? Grow up and get a handle on reality man. Your boss works for an international crime/terrorist organiztion not the people of the USA.

A terrorist is one who tries to control the general populace by fear, typically by threats/acts of kidnapping and murder.

You mean like Dick Cheney and George Bush? They used fear and threats of terrorist threats to control the general population. Oh no, they're good guys right? Their use of terrorism (exploitation of terrorism if you perfer euphemisms) to further a political agenda is perfectly at home here in the land of the free. Actually it was quite honorable and patriotic of them wasn't it? Evidently so because the democrats and Obama have adopted the very same policy.

When was the last time we were attacked? Let's see... oh yeah! Before we started fighting terrorists. Since then...hmmm. Nothing.

Maybe it's because the "terrorist" threat is greatly exaggerated. To benefit those who rake in the $$$ and consolidate their power by keeping us in perpetual fear of the unknown.

Wouldn't be the first time a republic was destroyed by usurpers under the noses of it's citizens in such a manner, and in your case with consent.

While you're at it maybe you ought to learn the definition of government too.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington ​

 

[TCassidy]

You two keep going back and forth never coming to any kind of conclusion.

Sapper Woody, I would like to ask you a question. Do you remember Hurricane Katrina and what happened in New Orleans? During and after the hurricane some units of the Army National Guard - particularly the Oklahoma ANG - were given illegal and unconstitutional orders to go door-to-door and confiscate the legally-owned firearms of law abiding gunowners! They should have refused these orders!! The commander even acknowledged on national TV that he was disturbed by these orders; that he thought it was wrong, but he also believed that he was compelled to carry out orders, no matter what.

Apparently this soldier is completely unaware of the awesome power of the 4th Nuremburg Principle, which holds that it is ALWAYS a crime to carry out an order that one knows is illegal, and that it is one's absolute legal and moral obligation to refuse and disobey such orders! You cannot say you are "just following orders"; German businessmen who supplied poison gas to concentration camps were sentenced to death at Nuremburg.

It is simply unlawful to obey an unlawful order!! In America, this principle applies to the Constitution, and among the several states.

So, Sapper Woody, here is my question. If you were ordered to search homes and confiscate firearms would you do so, or would you refuse? Would you rather be court martialed than violate the 2nd and 4th amendment rights of law abiding citizens?

Would you sacrifice your career by refusing to obey the order? Would you be willing to go to prison for disobeying a direct order? Would you be willing to face a firing squad for refusing to obey the order?

Don't be too quick to answer. Think about it. And remember, 100% of the ANG followed the orders and willingly violated the 2nd and 4th amendment rights of the law abiding people of New Orleans.

Now here is a followup question. If you were asked to serve on the court martial of the ANG troopers who obeyed the order to violate people's rights would you vote "guilty" and send them to prison for their actions?

Take your time, it is a question that is quite deep and goes to the very heart of our democratic republic and the concepts of liberty it was founded upon.

 

[TCassidy]

Maybe it's because the "terrorist" threat is greatly exaggerated. To benefit those who rake in the $$$ and consolidate their power by keeping us in perpetual fear of the unknown.

Well, I believe the threat is real. After all, the Cole was attacked. The Twin Towers were destroyed. The Pentagon was hit. The White House would have been had not some very brave airline passengers counted their lives less valuable than the country they were defending.

However, with all that said, I think the greatest threat this country faces is not from without, but within. The conduct of the police and ANG units during and after Katrina illustrate just how bad things have become in this country when the very people who have taken a sworn oath to protect the Constitution and the rights of the people are the ones who are willfully violating those rights and ignoring the Constitution. If that is not the beginnings of a Police State I don't know what is.

 

[poncho]

You two keep going back and forth never coming to any kind of conclusion.

Don't you mean "consensus" instead? That's not going to happen anytime soon. Sapper has his eyes to wide shut for all that TC. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[TCassidy]

Don't you mean "consensus" instead? That's not going to happen anytime soon. Sapper has his eyes to wide shut for all that TC. :smilewinkgrin:

No, I meant "conclusion" as in "the end of the matter" (or this thread).

Sapper may be slightly myopic regarding the role of the Military and his own responsibilities to the Constitution first and his Command second, but what about you? I am sure you read more than the first sentence. What say you?