It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Indivisibility? Who needs it!?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 09:01 AM
link   
The right-wingers typically hold their own narrow views as being a direct reflection of the intents of the Founding Fathers, yet when it comes to an actual demonstration they can't even get the basics right.

At a recent Teabagger demo on the capitol steps none other than the House Minority Leader John Boehner shows his ignorance by confusing the US Constitution with the Declaration of Independence and Rep. Todd Akin forgets the word "indivisible" while reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.


Boehner pulls a boner

Rep. Todd Akin screws up the Pledge of Allegiance, leaves out ‘indivisible.’

One must wonder how many of these teabaggers would fail the naturalization test I had to take to become a US Citizen. Oh and doesn't the word "Teabagger" have sexual connotations? How on earth do the rebubs call themselves that without blushing?

[edit on 7-11-2009 by Lilitu]




posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   
It may have been a mistake, but I think his psyche took over and he said it how he/ they feel.

Division is their intent.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 08:44 PM
link   
tptb have been on a constant crusade for division since they existed. there are no differences. black and white, good and bad, love and hate, christian and muslim, man and woman. we all share this human experience. its all life.

but if differences didnt exist, they wouldnt either. they capitalize on our differences. so they feed them.

its all a means to the goal of control. debt. sovereignty. ownership. rulership.

we're letting it happen. yay!



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Lilitu
 


The pledge of allegiance was created by a socialist to promote State authority and power. It was intended to be a tool used to brainwash children.

I owe allegiance to no one.

No American should swear allegiance to the State.

The State does not own me. I am not State property. I am not a serf.



[edit on 3-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


i have always had issues with this as well. it didn't sit well with me to stay at my sons school and see all the kids mindlessly pledge allegiance.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Let us look at the Orwellian language of the pledge:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

The word liberty explicitly means liberty from government, yet the entire first line is an oath to government power.

It is impossible to have liberty under a centralized republic body. By definition such a system dictates that individual rights are to be suppressed in favor of majority rule.

Further, the oath is an attempt to de-bar the use of nullification or secession as a tool to check federal power. This is the antithesis of justice and liberty. In fact nullification was predominantly used by Northern states as a means to avoid enforcement of the fugitive slave act. Nullification was also used in support of free speech rights to ignore sedition laws.

The Pledge of Allegiance was created by criminals to bring about a criminal superstate.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   
Dr. Tom Woods on nullification of federal criminal laws.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 12:29 AM
link   
The ignorance of the Constitution is bi-partisan and not limited to one political party, and in particularly the ignorance of members of Congress pertaining to the Constitution has become a common place phenomenon. Consider this exchange between Speaker of the House Nanci Pelosi and a reporter:


Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi looked like a deer caught in the blinding headlight of an oncoming freight train, her expression frozen in either ignorance or fear. It has always been difficult to distinguish between the two in her. But the malice in her words was palpable.

CNSNews.com: Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?

Pelosi: Are you serious? Are you serious?

CNSNews.com: Yes, yes, I am.

Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandate that individual Americans buy health insurance was not a "serious question."

You can put this on the record, said Elshami. That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.


www.capitalismmagazine.com...

However, after this exchange Elshami later issued a press release stating that it was the Commerce Clause that empowered Congress to legislate insurance mandates. Not a serious question? Why then issue such a press release?

Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), defends the federal mandate to purchase health insurance by pointing to federal speed limit laws on federal highways, and Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) invokes the Welfare Clause in order to justify the federal mandate. There is not even agreement on a party level as to what Clause of the Constitution actually grants Congress the authority to make such a mandate, let alone an understanding of the Constitution in general.

From the other party there is the infamous remark by Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania), asserting that the Constitution does not "grant any right to privacy", clearly ignorant of the existence of the 9th Amendment, let alone its meaning.

There are many examples of both Republicans and Democrats demonstrating a profound ignorance of the Constitution, and this threads clear attempt to function as a partisan political party hack does nothing to "deny ignorance" regarding the Constitution, particularly since there is no clear mandate for the existence of political parties to begin with.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Gotta love that commerce clause LOL

They should call it the "Police State" clause.

Congress can use guns to make you do anything.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


It is outrageous that the SCOTUS has extended the meaning of the Commerce Clause as far as they have, but at least with the SCOTUS, what was once "settled law" as Kagan has been fond of claiming in her hearings, can be and has been overturned.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I have faith that the bill of rights can be fully overturned by our criminal congress.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I have faith that the bill of rights can be fully overturned by our criminal congress.



Most assuredly that pesky 9th Amendment is constantly ignored in order to frame the Bill of Rights as a government grant of rights, rather than the clear prohibitions they are on Congress.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


9th amendment, jesus h christ man.

You can go to jail for mentioning that.

You should watch your language around here mister.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Lol! Your are correct, I am as profane as can be. I am shamefully an advocate for freedom, and stand guilty as charged.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


US History classes actually teach that the 9th amendment doesn't exist.

Its simply a typo.

Ask any public high school teacher in America if they have ever heard of the 9th amendment and they will stare at you with a blank face.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Unless, of course, they are teaching their class about Roe v. Wade, then suddenly the non-existent 9th Amendment exists just long enough to teach the "value" of abortions.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Sir, women have rights.

You, as a man, do not.

Lets be clear here.

Rights are for minorities.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


The single greatest minority is the individual.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


More seditious speech.

Sir, you are walking a fine line here.

You may turn up in the next ADL report on extremism.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





You may turn up in the next ADL report on extremism.


Join me won't you?

I know it is an ambition of yours.

Let's play in the sandbox of freedom and let the grown-ups scold us for having the "audacity of hope".



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join