It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


A Bigger Picture (Rise of the NWO)

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 02:30 PM
Here is a debate regarding the US Constitution, and its validity in the present day. The OP sets out to disprove the claim that the US Constitution has been suspended, but is unable to do so. Another ATS member joins the conversation allied to the opinion of the OP, but again, I am able to show more thorough evidence, proving once again that the US Constitution is no longer valid.

Our Constitution Has Been SUSPENDED...oh, has it now?

posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 09:46 AM
I dont deny the existence of groups trying to bring in a NWO.

The evidence is overwhelming.

A serious question I have is this:

What is so BAD about a New World Order?

Seriously. If you could be catapulted into power, would YOU leave things running the way they are now?

I wouldnt.

posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 07:17 PM
Great post jackinthebox

My research agrees with everything you claim. Spot on.

A couple of points to I'd like to clarify though in view of some of the responses.

1. The claim that Abraham Lincoln was all for abolishing slavery and that this was one of the main reasons for the civil war. This is incorrect. Lincoln didnt really care about the plight of the blacks:

"Even though Lincoln did not approve of slavery throughout his life, he realized it would be improbable that blacks and whites could live with equality, since they had to deal with too many prejudices.

During the Lincoln-Douglas debate at Charleston on September 18, 1858, Lincoln stated:

I will say then that I am not, nor have I ever been in the favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races . . . There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I... am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race ... I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position that the negroe should be deprived everything.

It was early in this debate that Lincoln was tested on questions dealing with the admission of additional slave states into the Union, the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act (which required that all slaves who escaped to northern states must be returned), and the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. He answered that he was not in favor of repealing the Fugitive Slave Act, he was not pledged against the admission of another slave state into the Union, and he did not at that time favor abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. However, toward the end of the debates, Lincoln started to convey his feelings regarding slavery. He stated that the inferior races were equal in their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but he also knew that it was impossible to produce a perfect social and political equality between black and white races".

2. America is an Enterprise. It is a Corporation. Hence the reason it has a PRESIDENT, as do all corporations. Its roots are in the British Commonwealth and the British banking system. It is a 'company' of the UK Empire.

The war of Independence was a war against paying taxes to the English King. The American people won this war and obtained their freedom from British rule, however they never completely cut themselves free from the British banking system. Their tentacles remained and shortly after an American president rubber stamped their official re-introduction by way of the federal reserve.

posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 11:32 PM
reply to post by Black Flag

What is so BAD about a New World Order?

The same things that were bad about Nazi Germany.

posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 06:22 PM
Just figured I'd pop in here and try to bump this back up on the list. I am particularly interested in other members ideas of the events surrounding the Civil War, but of course there is much more to discuss here as well.

posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 06:54 PM
I'm saorry that i dont have time yet to read the rest of your points. But Me being an Australian, have never thought that the civil war was about freeing the slaves. It was about freeing the states from the soverighnty of england. Becoming thier own country and having thier own governement and not to be ruled by some rayal twat half way around the world.

posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 07:35 PM
reply to post by DaRAGE

You're actually thinking of the American Revolution. Thirteen British colonies rebelled and successfully became the United States of America.

The Civil War, which occurred less than a century later, was a fight between the southern states which formed the Confederacy, and the northern states which formed the Union, which was loyal to the Federal authority of the United States. The Confederate states were loyal to their common goal of retaining the sovereignty of their respective states, against what they viewed to be opression by the Federal Government.

I thank you for your interest though. Please don't be put off by your mistake either. I'm sure I have a dreadfully lacking understanding of Australian history.

[edit on 3/20/0808 by jackinthebox]

posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 10:53 AM
sorry, but your assertion that mayer rothschild started the free masons is incorrect. simple wikipedia search will clear that up for you.


everytime i read this thread, i get more from it. thanks again for posting it. i have been doing a lot of reading about the pre and post ww2 world and it certainly seems that even some history books point (and wikipedia) to bankster manipulation and influence within multiple nations from different factions with the same agenda.

the movie "money is debt" broke down how the monetary system works in a very simple way to understand. I emplore all individuals who give a rats ass about the future for our children and ourselves to watch it.

the next step is figuring out what to do about it.

i say begin by cutting off the head of the snake...

edit for typos

[edit on 9/16/07 by abelievingskeptic]

posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 11:49 AM
just had a quick thought here.

I think it's obvious many people on ATS understand the implications of what is being pointed out in this thread. I mean these verifiable facts that can be corroborated certainly sheds light on some otherwise unprovoked thought processes, right?

What I am getting to is, WE understand some of this. But do the people in Congress, or the Senate or the administration or in some of these banking cartels understand? The people that can have a direct impact on the real world. Surely, not all of the aformentioned constituents participate willingly in this ridiculous conspiracy debacle? Some have to be innocent bystanders. They can not all be as malevolent as the perpetrators that came before them. So, what do we have to do to actually make an impact on these individuals in real life?

I think, obviously, the monetary policy in the U.S. has to be dealt with first. Im really not one to hold a sign above my head with my index and middle finger spread. (dont get me wrong, I am totally for peace..i just dont subscribe to the traditional hippy So how can we really make a difference? I mean Christ, I still have to work. I still have to feed my family, so what the hell can we do? We cant go around shooting all the bank personnel. That won't do us a lick of good, plus it is not there fault anyway. In my opinion, protesting is probably what 'they' expect and laugh at when they see it. So I doubt that would even phase them. The thing is there is always a yin to the yang, you know. We just have to find out what the yin is.

Any ideas?

there is honestly i do not like the way they go about it sometimes. Other times they do a good job. I think they would get more attention if they acted a little more civil than so outlandish at times. But I think, overall, they have the right idea.

posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 12:05 PM
reply to post by jackinthebox

That is the most pathetic response to a decent question I've seen on ATS yet, and that's saying a lot.

Surely, if you're a rational human being, you meant to say "there's nothing inherently wrong with a NWO, except the fact that it can be corrupted, either in its conception or its execution, in exactly the same way as any other system of government that exists in the world today, including in the US". That would have made more sense.

There is nothing wrong with the idea of a NWO. As throughout human history, humans have clumped together in bigger and bigger groups, reaping the benefits that this arrangement brings (more food, more minds working on the same problems, less fighting, better organisation, etc.). The NWO is the final stage of that, and if it can be kept democratic (which it certainly looks like it will be, if current trends continue), then what's the problem? Don't you trust the world looking after itself, or do you want the US to be on its own, using its veto for selfish gains at the great expense of the rest of the world? Is that it? Scared of not being "on top"?

posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 12:22 PM
reply to post by dave420

That is the most pathetic response to a decent question I've seen on ATS yet, and that's saying a lot.

Is is not then more "pathetic" to respond to such a response?

If you would like me to re-phrase my answer, I would say simply, "absolute power corrupts absolutely."

The NWO is the final stage of that, and if it can be kept democratic...

I don't believe that it can.

Don't you trust the world looking after itself, or do you want the US to be on its own, using its veto for selfish gains at the great expense of the rest of the world? Is that it? Scared of not being "on top"?

I do trust the world looking after itself. That is why I see no need to dissolve soveriegnty.

This has nothing to do with a fear of "not being on top." Quite the opposite. Look at what this "being on top" has done. Democracy in America is all but dead. In this Administration, we have seen the shift from Republic to Empire, the same as in ancient Rome. Would you want to be dictated to by an American Emporer? The fruitition of the NWO will actually be far worse than that.

I am not so sure you fully grasp the subject of a New World Order, and what is being planned. It is a global domination, not a democratic cooperative.

posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 12:39 PM
In a different reality, I could most definitely see the NWO having the possiblity of being a true good for humanity, but in light of everything that has occured in the past 300 years it doesn't look like it will be in the best interest of man.

posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 01:03 PM
reply to post by abelievingskeptic

I think that the only way a single global government would be viable to the interests of humanity, would be if we were to learn that we were not alone in the universe. We would need some external cause to unite us. Unification cannot be imposed except through tyranny otherwise. Just like true Democracy cannot be imposed, it must bloom like a flower from the ashes of tyranny.

Google Video Link

It has also bee theorized that the entire UFO phenomenon has been engineered to mentally prepare the people. But not for contact. Instead, to induce the belief that some alien threat exists where it does not, as a means to enslave mankind. That we will bow to a New World Order, by the hoax of an alien threat.

[edit on 3/25/0808 by jackinthebox]

[edit on 3/25/0808 by jackinthebox]

posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 03:30 PM
reply to post by jackinthebox

ya, you know. I came to ATS because of the UFO phenomenon and I have to say, ATS as a whole, has given me a more skeptical view/ approach to that particular genre. In fact, I pretty much steer clear of the whole subject altogether because of all the b.s. and hoaxing that seemingly takes place on a daily basis.

It could be true what you said about the preperation of the mind, but what evidence do you have to support that? Where did you hear that from?
There are still some major things goin on in the skies that can not be explained. Especially due to some of the eye-witness reports floating around out there.

But the NWO, I think, is such a broad topic in the sense that there are soooo many people involved (most apparently unknowingly) that it is hard to pinpoint where the devious actions/ mal-intentions are coming from. I think if it were so obvious it might be a little easier to really spread the word and make some progress in terms of actual change of mind with people.

Anyway, I show this thread to anyone interested in U.S. history that think they know what is going on and what the civil war is about. It really raises some eyebrows and gets people thinking. So once again, good job

Facts are the only thing that will make a difference. Im sure you have heard this one, but I will state it anyway "Opinions are like ###holes, everyone has one."

posted on May, 28 2008 @ 05:23 AM
Hi, Jack.
Oooops! I'm glad that I'm not greeting you in an airport...

I find your research to be pretty outstanding...I have only some points to add. Where I don't have any specific reply to your posts, simply means that I've not found any fault to your posts.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
I am suspecting that ol' Honest Abe might have been getting his pockets lined working for someone besides the American people.

I'm more inclined to think that he was pressured into the wrong choice, because he actually tried to warn the People what was going on: "I have the Confederate armies in front of me & I have the banks behind me. Of the two, the banks are more dangerous."

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Throw away all your notions of what you have been taught in school about the Civil War, and what you have read in textbooks. The propaganda of the victor is also highly revered.

IMO, this is the key to Deny Ignorance. Public schools operate under Federal subsidy & my own school experience indicates that there's too little emphasis on the intent & meaning of the Constitution & the true cause & effect in American History.
Personally, I would recommend the following reading material to suppliment any public school education suffered by American ATS readers:
Magna Carta. The basis of bringing official recognition to the ruling power that the People have certain Rights...And that foremost truth of Natural Law is that the mere threat or use of violence can enforce those Rights.
Declaration of Independence. The American Colonies provide detailed examples of the English Crown's violations of the Magna Carta & therefore exercise the Rights of Natural Law to severe their ties to England.
Articles of Confederation. The new nation's first attempts to codify the Natural Law & establish the rules of how the government must operate under Natural Law...Sort of a "first draft" of the Constitution, simply put.
United States Constitution. A specific codification of limited powers & duties for each of the 3 Branches of government & (more importantly) specific limitations on each Branch. Also sets guidelines of State powers & limitations. Specifies certain individual Rights under Natural Law (which are specifically immune to government interference). Although it must be admitted that most (or all) of these powers & limitations have been violated by government over the past couple of centuries, the Constitution also specifies certain Rights that must be exercised by the People in order to keep the government in line with Natural Law.
Another body of reading material that greatly explains the meaning & intent of the Articles of Confederation & the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land (as written by the Founding Forefathers) are the Journals of the Continental Congress.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Now we move on to the creation and establishment of the ubiquitous Federal Reserve.

You've done a good job of providing the historical foundation of the Fed Res, but a simple ATS Search, using the keywords "Federal Reserve" and/or "Fed Res" supplies a lot of info on how they operate today & explain just how deeply the Constitution was violated by the Federal Reserve Act. I recommend using the Search function because, frankly speaking, there's just way too many threads & way too much researched info to list all pertinent threads here.

According to what research I've done in this matter, I'd describe the modern US economic system to operate like the use of "corporate scrip" during the height of the Industrial Revolution...Literally speaking, Monopoly Money.

One other "mistake" made by the government that's closely related to the Fed Res is when corporate entities were granted the equivalent of Citizenship status...The Founding Forefathers' fight against the dominance of the English Charters was a very large part of why the War of Independnce was fought in the first place!

Originally posted by jackinthebox
It was not only the Federal government that became the private property of the elite international bankers. State government as well, having already relinquished their sovereignty to the Federal Government in the Civil War, are included as default payment.

The Fed Res, being a "corporation" in its own right (& also affected by the granting of "corporate citizenship"), is what forced the Natural Law of the Constitution to be superceded by other bodies of law (mostly foreign laws in origin), such as the Admirality Courts & the UCC (Universal Commercial Code)...As a result, the entire Judicial Branch operates under corporate law systems instead of Constitutional Law. If you must ever enter a court in the US, you must be very cautious of the court's juridiction, because if you try to invoke the Constitution in your defense, you will be charged with contempt of court & they can make it stick! The descriptions of the variable jurisdictions of the courts were posted slightly below the spot where I grabbed your quote are accurate.

Even though all Government Officials must swear/affirm a legall-binding Oath to obey the Constitution, they consider it to be a "lesser Oath" when weighed against the foreign laws in which their true loyalties lie. For some examples of how this "hidden law" system effects everybody in the USA & Quintar's references to people becoming property, refer to this thread.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
These sovereign individual rights now remain suspended and superseded, by the privileges and immunities of the incorporated U.S. Citizen, as a matter of public policy, as designated under the 14th Amendment.

What you say about the 14th Amendment is true, as far as how it's been used against us...However, a look at the Congressional Journals of those legislators that framed this Amendment specify their true intent with it:

While clearly establishing a national rule on national citizenship and settling a controversy of long standing with regard to the derivation of national citizenship, the Fourteenth Amendment did not obliterate the distinction between national and state citizenship, but rather preserved it.

And from

The Civil Rights Bill was debated on March 8 and 9. Representative John Broomall of Pennsylvania identified "the rights and immunities of citizens" as including the writ of habeas corpus and the right of petition.[50] Representative Henry Raymond of New York, the editor of the New York Times and a member of the Joint Committee, proposed an amendment to the bill declaring that all persons born in the United States are "citizens of the United States, and entitled to all rights and privileges as such."[51] This formulation is similar to what would become the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Raymond explained:
"Make the colored man a citizen of the United States and he has every right which you or I have as citizens of the United States under the laws and constitution of the United States. ... He has defined status; he has a country and a home; a right to defend himself and his wife and children; a right to bear arms"

Primarily, they stated that this Amendment was only to provide citizenship to those who did not have it at the time...Including the freed slaves. However, since it did not supersede or modify any portion in the main body of the Cosntitution, this Amendment could not be applied to People who already had citizenship under the State of birth or current established residence. The problem is that the government generally applied the 14th Amendment to arbitrarily include everybody for federal citizenship, regardless of any prior citizen status already established!

Originally posted by citizen truth
How can information like this get filtered down to the average American so they can reclaim their sovereignty?

This may be a good place to start, but I haven't yet found a place that doesn't charge for the specific info.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Further proof that the Constitution has no basis in the American court system, even in the highest court in the land: U.S. Supreme Court Denies Certiorari

Another example is how the 1st Amendment has been seriously undermined, particularly concerning the Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances. This is the primary (& last) recourse that the People have to peacefully get the government back on track, but it's being completely denied by the Supreme Court. Without this Right being enforced, violent upheaval is the only Constitutional recourse left.

------------Concluded Below---------

posted on May, 28 2008 @ 05:24 AM
------------Concluded From Above--------

Originally posted by quintar
District of Colombia > Not part of the U.S., World military power.
City of London > not a part of England > World Financial power.
Vatican City > not a part of Italy > World religious power.
If you look at the flag for D.C., it has 3 stars, representing the 3 city states.

This seems to be quite similar to the three major "power players" that I wrote about in Chapters 2, 3 & 4 back in 2003, called Future Shock...

Originally posted by poet1b
Thanks for the Khazaria reference.

As for the "Khazarian Connection" (if you care to call it that), there's quite a bit about that over here, although I can't personally confirm or dispute the veracity of this particular source. Apply a liberal portion of salt with further research on this.

posted on May, 28 2008 @ 07:15 AM
reply to post by MidnightDStroyer

Great post as usual. Just wanted to comment of the constitution in general because it seems to me when you swear an oath to uphold it you are to uphold it. But as almost everyone on ATS sees this is not being done. So the question is why? I can think of only 2 possibilities and that is

A. The people in government really dont know the constitution and what it holds pr knows what it says but doesnt understand it.

B. The people in government really DO have an agenda some NWO to kill the sovereignty and rights of our people for a greater agenda. So really in short its is our government stupid or out for some great fascist one world under one government.

Ive been hearing about that little sentence about redressing grievances and how the supreme court shot down a request to define it. This to me is scary considering the government should be working for us and if we have complaints we should be able to let the government know to have the issues resolved. Example I just sent my local representative and senator a long winded email about complaints I have and how I want to see how they feel about these issues. I have a copy and it goes like this

"Hello Tim

Right now we face some really tough issues in the coming elections. Some being addressed and others being completely ignored. If I could get your opinions and positions on these issues so I can better learn of how you have and are going to address these issues.

First off the national debt. We are approaching 10 trillion dollars of debt and climbing rapidly with the republicans and the democrats sitting back and pointing. I truly feel this is one of the main issues in the rising fuel and food prices (I dont but into the supply and demand) On top of this we are selling shorter term bonds that will be due and we will have to print more and more money and rack on more and more of the debt to cover these. 22% of the our governments revenue goes to pay on the interest of the national debt as it is and as we rack it up more and more soon 50% of the revenue could be going to pay the interest only on the debt. I mean if people really understood this there would be riots in the streets.

We have the republicans who want to spend and spend and instead of raising taxes put it on the charge card and pay interest on it to China, UK, Japan, the middle east, and even our own FED. This essentially is like paying another tax because we have the inflationary issues and its all the more in interest we have to pay on the debt that comes with this method of doing business.

We have the democrats who want to spend even more than the republicans on entitlements but also raise taxes to keep the debt from skyrocketing the way it has been but also risking hurting the economy even more. So really it comes down to I have to choose do I want to pay my debt now or later with interest? This is what Im trying to sort out because I love taxes being low in fact I dont want any income taxes but because our government both dems and repubs spend like there is no tomorrow this is the question I have to ask myself. Please give me your input on how you feel you can stave off this issue which I feel is prime to our current economical situation.

Second is this war in Iraq and our military policy. We are spending from the numbers I get almost 50% to 60% of our revenue goes to not only fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but to maintain bases in areas we should no longer need them. "Conquest is not in our principles. It is inconsistent with our government." Thomas Jefferson But yet it seems this is what we have become an empire. With bases all over the world and in many places we dont need them it almost looks imperial to me. So where did we go off track? When did it become US policy to be an empire instead of just being a strong self sufficient country that can defend its borders (which is a segway to my next issue)When we have bridges and roads collapsing here and people struggling when did every other countries priorities come first. Why are we sending millions of dollars over seas for relief when we here need relief to get the middle class up and running again and no the $600 stimulus will not work in my opinion. I feel our cut is much deeper. So on this issue where do you stand on this empire we are running?

Third Immigration. Why is it so hard to make a policy to make legal immigration easier. I just do not see where the tie ups are. There should be no reason why we cant come up with a policy to make a faster track for people to get here legally. This would prevent the billions we would have to spend on walls and it would make it so we know whos here. Wheres the hold up?

Fourth Civil Liberties. With the passing of the patriot act we have cases where people are getting hauled off to jail without trial or due process. For example this guy Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri who could very well be a terrorist but has not got a trial or even evidence showing he has done the things the government has claimed. Now my fears is this could spread. This kind of power can be corrupted and soon it could be John Smith who gets rounded up instead of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri and to me this is scary and just as anti American as the terrorists that who want to blow us up. "He who sacrifices liberty for freedom deserves neither" Ben Franklin. If we have to give up our liberties if that is truly why these guys hate us for our freedoms then by giving up the freedoms arent they winning this war? Not only do you have that case but you have that TX polygamist case where these people's children were rounded up no due process or trial just on a hoax call. I can list several more but my point is this is a trend that is starting to take hold. Guilty before proven innocent and civil liberties being walked on. If Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri was training in Al Queada camps how the heck did we let him into this country in the first place let alone go to school and live here. So my question to you is what liberties do we need to give up to be safe? How many more?

In final I just want to say I am one American who is waking up to the reality that this is not the same America that was founded in 1776. The things changed after 9/11 I dont buy into because things have been going down hill since the early 1900s. We fought the British for a lot of things that our government uses as policies today and for years both democrats and republicans have sat back and done nothing. I just want to know am I going delusional or is this country going down hill in a hurry. Please give me your insight. I look forward to having a discussion with you on these issues and there are others but we will start with this.

Allen "

And these guys wont even give me the decency of a personal response just a canned email saying they appreciate my input. So how the hell is a true government supposed to change things if they wont listen to us.

posted on May, 28 2008 @ 11:10 AM

Originally posted by mybigunit
This is what Im trying to sort out because I love taxes being low in fact I dont want any income taxes but because our government both dems and repubs spend like there is no tomorrow this is the question I have to ask myself.

Answer: Government's already too big, with its fingers stuck into more pies than it was ever meant to touch (by Constitutional Oath). Cut the government back to Constitutional limitations & cut out the programs that were never supposed to exist...Government's size is reduced & will cost less to function. The USA was able to get by without an enforced direct tax on individual income for the first 140 or so years of its existence & can probably do so again.

Originally posted by mybigunit
Conquest is not in our principles. It is inconsistent with our government." Thomas Jefferson But yet it seems this is what we have become an empire. With bases all over the world and in many places we dont need them it almost looks imperial to me. So where did we go off track?

Answer: Again, the answer revolves around restroring the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land. The very existence of our military is to serve the purpose of "common defense." Therefore, stop sending our troops overseas to fight the battles of other countries (& the United Nations) & bring them back to help Immigration Services guard our borders & round up illegals...After all, we're already paying the military to defend us, so get them to do that very job.

Originally posted by mybigunit
Third Immigration. Why is it so hard to make a policy to make legal immigration easier. I just do not see where the tie ups are. There should be no reason why we cant come up with a policy to make a faster track for people to get here legally. This would prevent the billions we would have to spend on walls and it would make it so we know whos here. Wheres the hold up?

As well as having the military help Immigration Services, we must enforce current Immigration Laws & enforce programs that can verify valid, legal citizenship before providing employment/housing/social services, etc. You'll find that many illegals will find their own way home because they get the message that they're not welcome here if they're here illegally. This "middle ground tactic" is much cheaper to enforce than mass roundups/deportations & much more effective than mass "amnesty deals" that change only the definition of "illegal alien" while still not solving the problems of overpopulation/unemployment rate of citizens/undue strain on social & civil infrastructures,etc.
This is an example of what's been wrong with "bipartisan politics"...Only two extreme/bipolar ideas are offered, neither which will solve a problem but totally neglects any cooperation to to employ any effective "middle ground thinking."

Originally posted by mybigunit
Fourth Civil Liberties. With the passing of the patriot act we have cases where people are getting hauled off to jail without trial or due process.

Again, restore the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land & reduce the government to Constitutional limitations. Congress cannot "legislate around" Civil Rights, Executive cannot "enforce against" Civil Rights & Judicial cannot "interpret against" the spirit of Civil Rights. It all comes down to each Branch of the government doing its real job of enforcing the Constitution & maintaining the "checks & balances" system so as to keep all Branches working within their Oaths of Office.

Originally posted by mybigunit
So my question to you is what liberties do we need to give up to be safe? How many more?

Zero. The government never could provide security on an individual basis to all Citizens...Regardless of how hard they try or what other promises they make. That's what the 2nd Amendment was intended to do...Allow us the ability to defend ourselves on a normal day-to-day basis. It also allows Citizens to aid in repelling (or at least deterring) a foreign invasion until the federal military & National Guard can be mobilized for an effective counter-attack...This was the original concept envisioned by the Founding Forefathers as to the true purpose of militias.

Last but certainly not least, the 2nd Amendment gives Citizens the ability to defend ourselves against a government going tyrannical...All throughout history, it has been proven time & again that any government that disarms its People always wind up suppressing/oppressing them.

Originally posted by mybigunit
And these guys wont even give me the decency of a personal response just a canned email saying they appreciate my input. So how the hell is a true government supposed to change things if they wont listen to us.

Answer. The same way that the various nobles got King James to sign the Magna Carta...The mere threat of violent retaliation worked then & it can work now. As I've already pointed out, the Right to Petition is the means People have to give the government a "hearing test" to see if they're listening...Once they stop listening it's time to invoke the 2nd Amendment...After all is said & done, the 2nd Amendment is the last defense for all other Rights.
"The People...are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberties."--Thomas Jefferson.
Aren't these answers much better than you'll ever get from the government?

posted on May, 28 2008 @ 12:16 PM
reply to post by MidnightDStroyer

Yeah I know those are good answers. In fact those would be MY answers if I had to answer them but I wanted to hear it from our people actually in the government. I wanted to hear or feel the squirming and get the debate started. Like I said it wont happen because they will never even read my email.

posted on May, 28 2008 @ 12:27 PM
Excellrnt contributions here guys. Thanks for ringing in.

MidnightDStroyer, you seem to be quite well versed in this subject matter. I have been working on a another piece along these lines, hoping it will be accepted as a Premium article, but it seems that you have a firm grasp of this material while I am still wading through all of this.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in