"Damn The Country, Obama Must Fail"

reply to post by EnlightenUp


Here is my contention friend. Presumably (not true) the nation was an experiment in Government. All parties believed that they could (as states) leave the Union at anytime if the experiment was not working. During Andrew Jackson's Presidency in fact many did want to leave and he talked them into not leaving the Union during a joint special session of Congress where he argued successfully that it would do irreprable harm if any State were to leave the Union to the other members of the Union as all fortunes had been tied together, and the remaining states would in effect have to pick up the slack.

The war wasn't over slavery, slavery was added at a later point in time to get Christian support in the North for what was basically a brother against brother war that was quickly costing a lot of money and a lot of lives.

That is a historical fact. Lincoln purchasing and setting up the nation of Liberia to repriate the slaves too is also an Historical Fact.

What was really at the core of the problem and slavery just happened to be one of many issues was States rights. The Federal Government was becoming dictatorial and the founders had not wanted that.

The laws that applied to the citizens up until that point in time were minute in number, most of today's laws would have been scoffed at and led to fisticuffs or duels.

Today we have 600,000 laws on the books, the nation started out with three. You could not Murder, you could not steal, you could not committ treason.

The rules and the procedures were violated at their core. I laid out a sound argument based on strict and proper interpetation of the Law, many people have done research on this and my friend I don't watch Alex Jones!

I don't subscribe to Ron Paul. I once saw Wolfe Blitzer interview Glen Beck and all these deflectionary arguments and suppostions are just that.

I only care about the truth, the truth of corruption, the truth of lies, the truth of freedom.

No one is free today. Lincoln did not free the slaves, he made us all slaves and illegal for slaves to own other slaves.

I don't like the direction this nation has been headed in and I haven't liked it since I was six years old.

Do you think when I first started researching conspiracies and histories at the age of six it was for the sake of maintaining slaves or women barefoot and pregnant.

There technically and legally should have been a new constitiutional convention at the end of the Civil War that produced an agreed upon Civil Document and Charter for the nation that was put to the vote of all citizens.

The proof of what happened is very simple Jackson used words to save a Constitutional Union.

Linclon killed millions to force an unconstitutional union.

Social economic conditions could have ended slavery. Excessive Tarrifs on slaves, other nations boycotting goods produced by slave labor, other nations blockading and prizing slave merchant vessels etc., etc., would have made slavery a thing of the past probably even more quickly than the illegal war of brother against brother that was not started over slavery but States rights as promised in the Constitution versus the Federal Government's unconstitutional growing power.

I care about the truth, and the truth is that we have been living under a military dictator ship and a Defacto Government since 1861, and with 600,000 penalizing laws on the books, excessive and even punitive taxation that limits the quality of life for the working poor, and a far flung military empire our fore fathers did not want and cuationed against it really isn't working out well except for the politicians and corporate fat cats.

My cause is truth, my agenda is truth.

Truth sets people free.

I am so honest in my agendas and posts its not even funny, I make sure everyone knows where I stand and why.

Do you?



[edit on 22/9/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

reply to post by EnlightenUp
Greetings Doubter...

How is it that this *formerly*, great Nation, of "The United States", managed to become the *Super Power* that it has become?

I say nay...

The Founding Fathers are now turning in their graves...

A new poll shows 3% of a towns youth know the First President of the US?!?

...Can you imagine a Einstein or Newton :Et Al, doing the Theory of Relativity in this age, out of High School???

Name me the 50 States and 2 of our *Corporate States*...(What's that?)...

Tick...Tick...Tick...ok...I'll give ya 1...P.R. ...name another...Bush Jr knew 'em... ...didn't know Alaska and Palin though...

Edit: our *System* skews History...doesn't even teach fiscal responsibility...but, we teach our young women to make aprons and bake cupcakes...ect... :shk:

[edit on 9/22/2009 by Hx3_1963]

reply to post by Hx3_1963


I dunno how old you are..... but young women are NOT taught to bake cupcakes. They are taught in a school system designed around them... while men are taught that if they don't bake the cupcakes they are sexist pigs and will face the womans wrath.

But as you say, the education system in this country is... embarassing. To say the least..

And speaking of skewed history, the founding fathers were far from "innocent".

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
The war wasn't over slavery, slavery was added at a later point in time to get Christian support in the North for what was basically a brother against brother war that was quickly costing a lot of money and a lot of lives.

That is a historical fact. Lincoln purchasing and setting up the nation of Liberia to repriate the slaves too is also an Historical Fact.

His public political views did not fully mesh with his personal views. I know about Liberia and his membership in the American Colonization Society. While in fact the ending of slavery is often seen as an adjunct to the War, he was a member of a party of a bunch of abolitionist radicals called the Republican Party. He did want to end slavery at the earliest opportunity but also understood the practical implications of freeing them in a world where a free and equal black man is a very, um, progressive idea. Some of that was to appease the south but they didn't quite buy it and so it pushed things over the line.

Slavery certainly was a major issue from the beginning and it was states rights in relation to it to that played a role. The south with its agrarian economy depended more on the institution than the north. Never mind that nearly everyone suffered for it, regardless of race.

The powers that be down there really didn't wish to lose control and wealth.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
What was really at the core of the problem and slavery just happened to be one of many issues was States rights. The Federal Government was becoming dictatorial and the founders had not wanted that.

What state has a right to enslave a man/woman? Many of the founding fathers really did not want that either but practical considerations in establishing a union did get in the way of everything being absolutely perfect from the start.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
The laws that applied to the citizens up until that point in time were minute in number, most of today's laws would have been scoffed at and led to fisticuffs or duels.

We should not forget those that call for many of these laws and I don't mean the "elite". I mean the ones that want to be king for a day.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Today we have 600,000 laws on the books, the nation started out with three. You could not Murder, you could not steal, you could not committ treason.

No argument there. I think I've encountered higher figures. I brought this up myself earlier on. It's quite a mess.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Do you think when I first started researching conspiracies and histories at the age of six it was for the sake of maintaining slaves or women barefoot and pregnant.

I certainly hope not. However, I have no intention of going backwards or romanticizing anything in the past. Trudge forward.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
All parties believed that they could (as states) leave the Union at anytime if the experiment was not working.

...

The proof of what happened is very simple Jackson used words to save a Constitutional Union.

It appears ultimately they didn't get the message if this is the Jackson you mean:
Jackson's Proclamation Regarding Nullification

To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure. (December 10, 1832)

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
No one is free today. Lincoln did not free the slaves, he made us all slaves and illegal for slaves to own other slaves.

...

No one is free today. Lincoln did not free the slaves, he made us all slaves and illegal for slaves to own other slaves.

...

Linclon killed millions to force an unconstitutional union.

It is certainly possible that Lincoln's own personal views and good intentions led him to the use of excessive force, thus creating a new brand of evil. Indeed that is the law at work...the one that matters.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
My cause is truth, my agenda is truth.

Truth sets people free.

Mine as well. I do not readily lap it up from any side. I have looked into your claims and frankly much of it hangs on by a thin thread and only to that degree with me only because of an interesting piece of info acquired personally.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
I am so honest in my agendas and posts its not even funny, I make sure everyone knows where I stand and why.

Do you?

That is good. I try to do the same when possible or proper.

If people had listened to George Washington and not had any politicial parties, maybe none of this would have happened.

Gee, thanks everyone. I really appreciate this, as I'm sure you all do too.

reply to post by EnlightenUp
Greetings!

I find...after reading your post...

1) You are replying for the sake of such a post...

2) You offer no evidence to support yer counter-claims...

3) Your posts are in all Actualization counter-productive to the search for *truth*...therefore I "Will carry on my wayward sun..."

BTW: Block after Block of Quoting...

...Getting old when nothing is argued...

Originally posted by Hx3_1963
reply to post by EnlightenUp

 

Greetings!

I find...after reading your post...

1) You are replying for the sake of such a post...

2) You offer no evidence to support yer counter-claims...

3) Your posts are in all Actualization counter-productive to the search for *truth*...therefore I "Will carry on my wayward sun..."

BTW: Block after Block of Quoting...

...Getting old when nothing is argued...

Your evaluation of my post is defensive and biased.

What you have presented is are prepackaged rants for an for an already friendly audience using many dodgey assertions that have been debunked.

You may present some nuggets of truth in the form of some paragraphs I haven't seen anything implying the reality you have asserted exists, not for the larger assertions such as no congress has convened lawfully since 1861 thus we live under corporate contract law. We may in fact live under a lobbyist infected cesspool but that is not the same thing.

And no, states cannot come and go from the union or disregard the Federal government as they please because they disagree with it. Jackson warned them what would happen, Lincoln followed through with it. There's more to come and frankly I worry for all our sakes.

Blessings. Over and out...

reply to post by EnlightenUp


Well my friend here is the long and short of it, nothing was debunked yesterday unless you feel that a infrequent poster to ATS who claims to have written the House Historian for an answer (sounds like something a parent would tell his 12 year old to do by the way) claims that the House Historian answered back a certain way, with out even bother to scan the official correspondence and provide evidence of the actual interaction taking place.

Let’s fast forward and pretend the poster did write the House Historian, what would you expect the House Historian to reply? Yes, I work for an illegal enterprise that unconstitutionally operates as the Defacto Corporate Congress under the office of a Dictatorial President? You are joking right?

Let’s look at some of your own attempts to revise history…”Linclon was concerned how the blacks would fare once freed in such a non-progressive society as ours was at the time”. Wrong! Lincoln wrote the fundamental differences in races made him feel they were incompatible and could not cohabitate. His words not mine.

If you really imagine the 600,000 laws in the United States Civil Code is not a corporate government when over half of them and then some are written for the advantage of corporations to the disadvantage of human beings then all I can say is that you like many people simply don’t want to have to deal with the ramifications or responsibilities of the truth.

Ultimately friend what ATS attracts are people NOT wanting to accept the ‘Official’ version of truth and events, who want to dig for deeper knowledge and answers beyond the cursory sound bites that make for attractive lies like the stance you incorrectly tried to pass as being Lincoln’s regarding why he founded Liberia.

History is written by the victors and then rewritten and rewritten again.

Have you read today’s newspaper? Is it reflective of what is really happening today? Now ask yourself this have you read the New York Times say for March 13, 1861? It’s available you know, unedited in it’s original version to reflect what was going on, on that day.

Some of us spend a lot of time investigating history not by writing or claiming to write Historians and then jumping up and down because it reinforces the illusion they are desperate to maintain for the sake of their own comfort and laziness. Some of us read these original documents, in their entirety, some of us read the first editions in their entirety, some of us go to as close to the actual source of what was happening when it was happening and don’t rely on a 30 second sound bite or a two paragraph short politically correct snippet wrote for young and impressionable minds in text books.

It wasn’t about there being a friendly audience to this debate, it was about their being a better educated audience to this debate. Ultimately some people live in denial and want to cling to the illusion at any cost even if it means its to the detriment of themselves and the world.

Some people don’t. Nothing was either debunked here today or absolutely proven either, but there sure is a far greater preponderance of evidence to suggest what I and many others are saying than there is a preponderance of evidence to say otherwise.

You are welcome to live in denial, to cling to myths and superstitions, but if the truth and those seeking truth offend you or frighten you, then a progressive school of thought like ATS probably isn’t the best place for you.

If we wanted the ‘official’ version, that’s something we already know and have heard, the older we are, the more we have heard it change and be twisted and rewritten in our life times.

There is far more cause to be suspicious than to be accepting.

I hope things work out too, I am just not going for the lets pretend and stick our collective heads in the sand strategy that too many favor.

I seek the truth, and nothing at all was debunked here today. Except perhaps for some people’s motivations and agenda in trying!

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


You truely don't have a to-the-point coherent response?

If you suppose it hinges on whether a story is too official or not isn't even addressing a point at all. Framing it in an official/unofficial dichotomy is false. Many times and even now you have simply appealed to biases based on comfort/discomfort, official/unofficial, denial/acceptance, etc. It's a chain of buzzword talking points and nothing more, a concoction of usual ingredients that get people's heart pounding. I know substantially no more of your argument through any kind of impartial sources than I did before I came into this thread to be honest. Looking around appear to refute much of the particular version of events. If your motive is to wake people up, you really should try to prove your case and not focus whether I debunked anything. If you claim that ATS is already awake because they are an educated audience, why are you here preaching to the choir? If I present anything, I present it as questions to you, in all truth.

What you said about states casually leaving the union because it was all a friendly experiment is plainly off the wall and wrong. I feel that's been debunked by Jackson's own words and not some official spoon feeding of history or whatever you like to call it. Honestly, it does not add weight to your "side".

As far as Lincoln, I am overall aware of his public stances and the official line comes closer to what you say than what I happen to know but cannot definitively prove at this time. At least I will admit my difficulties, which shall remain difficult until such time as the true nature of things is revealed.

You think I stick my head in the sand? Wake up! You wouldn't know an ostrich from a emu.

There is far more cause to be suspicious than to be accepting.

Haha. You said it! But, I suppose that is unless it is some anonymous guy on ATS given a gift for writing and moving me by the heart strings, that is, that is.

reply to post by EnlightenUp


My friend you aren't interested in a coherent response you are interested in attention!

One of my on topic posts to this thread a month ago illicited a very deliberate response in an off topic way from another member.

He failed to make his point, he failed to debunk anything.

All the information has been laid out there, the topic is about how lobbyists to influence the illegal corporate government established in 1861!

Reject the information or accept the information but these attempts to just dismiss the information out of hand and to make it about not the information but the personalities that present the information and the style in which they are presenting it is as counterproductive as it is pointless.

You are a big boy or girl you decide for yourself, I already have, and you nor anyone else on the other side of the issue has posted anything even remotely thought provoking to cause any reconsideration.

Have a nice day!

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


You can evaluate my personality to your liking. I am not in need of attention. I am learning much right now but on a different level.

I recall your producing a couple tax documents you claimed you had when requested. You said "show me the law where it says I have to pay taxes". I showed you the law. Then you say "it isn't valid because it's corporate contract law, blah, blah". I say "show me it's corporate contract law and congress is illegal, etc; etc.". We never realy got passed there. Very well. Not all questions were answered by a long shot.

Other sources you pointed to were an ATS thread essentially about capitis diminutio and the "original 13th amendment" which are dodgey claims typical of right-winger freeman-on-the-land talking points.

I asked for your help in substantiating what you said, many, many, times which I would think given the direness of the situation you would provide as a solemn duty to the people.

Whether it is thought provoking or not is up to the individual reader. My purpose is not necessarily to convince you. But, what does your assumption that you're actually the center of this say about you? No need to answer that.

Edit: Fix latin-espanol language mashup. LOL.

[edit on 9/23/2009 by EnlightenUp]

reply to post by EnlightenUp


Actually in the case you refer to I proved it was corporate law at play. I even provided documented evidence of what really transpired.

You are stuck in a political left/right divide where you lack the faith in yourself to be right about something but need a side to validate you are right about something because they say so.

I am my own sovereign and that's what the Constitution granted me.

I don't need a left or a right, to do what's right for me.

So sorry!

Originally posted by Hx3_1963

Hmmm...seems a *way* was found around this...as well...

:shk:

How to survive a terrorist attack: the Constitution's majority quorum requirement and the Continuity of Congress
findarticles.com...

~
The Civil War Congresses essentially took the same "ends-justify-the-means" approach to the crisis they faced when the southern states failed to send senators and representatives to Washington in 1861.

As Part III of this Article showed, the Civil War Congresses took the radical step of altering the constitutionally fixed majority quorum rule to continue operations. (292)

Based on the language of the majority quorum rule in Article I, Section 5, Clause 1, the debate over quorum rules in the Constitutional Convention, and consistent practice in the First through Thirty-sixth Congresses, the quorum provision requires the presence of a majority of members from the House or the Senate--as those two chambers are defined by the Constitution and later statutes--before those chambers can do business.

During the Civil War crisis, the two chambers changed this fixed, institution-based definition of the quorum to a variable, member-based definition that viewed the House and Senate in terms of the members occupying seats at any particular moment. (293)

Rebuttal awaited...

Yes...I'm drawing this out on purpose...I love a *Parade*!!!

Hail Caesar!!!

[edit on 9/22/2009 by Hx3_1963]

While it is true that a way around was found, the Speaker put it forth to the Congress and no objections were raised. Further reading reveals that. Add to that the fact that this had never been addressed fully in the Constitution since the Framers had not presumed a civil war, and the fact that technically the southern states were no longer states of the Union(But the Congress simply didn't want to admit that) and the proof of this is that they had to "Rejoin" the union following the war. We can only conclude that we had a Quorum.

But, for the sake of argument lets just say we didn't for the moment. Following the civil war and 1870 when all Southern states had legally rejoined, at their own request, the Union, then we cannot argue that a Quorum didn't exist following 1870. So really, this entire argument at the VERY LEAST, can only claim no legal laws with the exception of the 13th amendment(that one because the southern states did finally agree to it and the north had already), were passed during the period from 1861 - 1870. That is only a 9 year period, so before and after that everything was legal.

However, I will not concede that a Quorum didn't exist. Attorneys adjust and argue language and legalities all the time and since the Constitution is itself a living document up for interpretation, I argue that the Congressional members of the day interpreted and manipulated it the same as any congress before or after has done legally, and thus this situation was no different.

I.E. the claims that no legal laws have been passed since 1861 is unfounded and simply wrong. At the most you can claim the 9 years in the middle, but even those are up for debate.

Originally posted by Darky5K
If people had listened to George Washington and not had any politicial parties, maybe none of this would have happened.

George Washington didn't realize it but he was right in the middle of a 3 party system during the negotiation of 1787. Large States, Small States, and Southern States. They all had wishes that may have differed from one another, and may have started as simple alignments, but they were exactly what we find today in political parties. Whats worse is that 1787 was a particularly hot summer and it seems that the convention delegates agreed to the document before they were completely satisfied. The Large State Southern State alliance supremely overcame and that was the seeds for the civil war. Since the southern states would not sign the document without guarantees of slavery in the south and the Large states needed the southern support to overcome the arguments of the small states.

It's all a really big cluster f*** if you ask me. Hence my claim that politics has never really changed. We just romantisize that period b/c we think it was different then, but it really wasn't.

Originally posted by dooper
So I began to peel back layers, as in an onion, and while I've gone deeper than ever before, I almost dread getting to the center.

Peel away, and find GOOD information, but don't let this proto guy fool you. He is spreading unsubstantiated lies with no historical backing. And for the record dooper, I did respond to HX with good and logical reasoning. I even took his source as reputable, although I have not checked it's source. Even with that though I think what it claims seems logical. A Quorum still existed however, it was just about a technicality that whether a Quorum existed or not didn't matter after 1870.

I do appreciate you and Proto exposing us to even MORE good information. I promise, there are many who read these posts, and never knew some of these things - me included.

I appreciate good information too, but proto is not spreading good information on THIS PARTICULAR topic. He refuses to accept the truth or search for it or provide any useful proof of his claims. I have done all of this yet the 2 of you still refuse to believe it. It leaves me to question any of your posts and your claims. It leaves me to question your credibility although GetReadyAlready speaks highly of you dooper so I think you have simply been dooped by Proto.

Now, with all of that said, maybe Proto does have some valid points somewhere, but at this point I would have to sift through so much bs to find them that I don't want to spend the time. He may be credible on many of his claims, but he has refused the truth and the historical facts on this topic (1861 and Quorum and such) that I would find any of his claims to be credible whatsoever.

Proto, man up, admit the truth and your search for the truth, and maybe we can find the truth together. Your incessant denial of historical fact baffles me. This forum is about finding the truth and presenting evidence to or against the claims or misthoughts of others. How can you claim to search for the truth when you cannot even accept the historical evidence presented to you or even the U.S. Constitution itself.

Unbelievable!

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by EnlightenUp

 

Actually in the case you refer to I proved it was corporate law at play. I even provided documented evidence of what really transpired.

I guess I am failing to find this documentation as a qualification of documentation for the particular conclusion. But wait...there's more!

You are stuck in a political left/right divide where you lack the faith in yourself to be right about something but need a side to validate you are right about something because they say so.

It's not about being right or left/right but correct.

My disagreement is NOT that there is a defacto corporate goverment but about the nature and origin of it. I am more inclined toward good old fashioned corruption, greed and lust to power rather than a chain of events from the Civil War leading to all law being unlawful because no Congress or Senate has legally convened since March 28, 1861. What also troubles me is the contradiction. If the Constitution was effectively suspended at the time, then it is logical to conclude that it is no guage of the lawfulness of anything since, hence no defense to call any Congress or Senate "unlawful".

If the states had seceeded, then what is the argument about the quorum? If they did not wish to be included, then they have absolutely no ground to stand on when the remaining union goes on about their business on their own. If they wanted to be part of it and have a say, they should have stayed. Once they split all bets were off. Jackson made it clear in the document I provided that that the Federal government wasn't going to take any crap from the secessionists and there would be trouble if they started acting up. Granted, they put up a good fight and still are but they knew what was coming, and if they think, they should realize it isn't over and the promises hold water.

I am my own sovereign and that's what the Constitution granted me.

You don't understand the Constitution. It doesn't grant things. It defines the boundaries of government. In the case of the bill of rights, it merely reaffirms certain fundamental rights by denying legislators the authority to infringe upon those rights. It states that the list is not to be construed as an enumeration, a granting. All things are granted us by our sovereign nature, by simply being born. Negative rights.

reply to post by EnlightenUp


I guess you also failed to notice that any proof one might require that we live under a military dictatorship has been furnished in spades in Pittsburgh the last couple of days.

You can argue for the sake of arguing all you want but the proof and evidence is all around you.

I guess enlightenment comes harder to some people than others no matter what they advertise.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by EnlightenUp

 

I guess you also failed to notice that any proof one might require that we live under a military dictatorship has been furnished in spades in Pittsburgh the last couple of days.

You can argue for the sake of arguing all you want but the proof and evidence is all around you.

I guess enlightenment comes harder to some people than others no matter what they advertise.

I have noticed and noticed for years, far, far before ATS or the like was even a zygote. I don't believe it requires a situation of the nature you outline. It's just a reflection of human nature, the synthesis of those in power and the people, many of whom would do the same if the tables were turned. They're facing themselves in concentrated form. That's why it is still there, hasn't gone away and won't until the world sees itself as one people.

reply to post by EnlightenUp

Well considering you have been arguing against my stated belief that a military dictatorship has long abolished the constitution and rules by dictatorial corporate decree then I am at a loss based on this admission now to understand why it is you are arguing and precisely what.

People must crawl before they walk, and walk before they run, and the first step in any such endeavor is awareness of one's surroundings and circumstances.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


I suppose I am arguing on the technical specifications and blueprints of the machine more than the overall effect. I suppose if we wish to treat it like some kind of black box (do we need to care if the resistors are delta or wye configuration?) performing a function of input and output, look at ourselves and change ourselves (the input) and the result changes (the output).

No worldly power is possible to wield by any elite without sufficient number of our brother and sisters complicit in the acts against their own kind. Without that support, the "elite" cannot be propped up and thus do not exist. They are a manifestation of resistance against each other.