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.

 

Unamerican people need to leave America

page: 5
102
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpectreDC
...And yet you have "patriotic Americans" preaching and crying about the DoI, the Constitution, the founding fathers....and yet completely contradict themselves when they start shouting for the natural rights of others to be infringed. This isn't my opinion, this is fact.

I'm calling people out for being hypocrites and sycophants, cherry picking what is convenient for them to say at certain times to make their plights and arguments more impacting.


I enjoyed this, especially the above mentioned statement.

I have pondered and restrained from posting as of late in attempts to further understand the more deeper thinking you are presenting, rather than jerking the knee in attempts to fend off those that proclaim "equal justice under the law; except those people" types.

There are some very basic tenets that I believe the average citizen either is ignorant or unwilling to accept in terms of the Constitution and what it means.

First, as you and Jean Paul have been explaining in completely different manners, the Constitution and the ideals and ethics scribed forward are one of Natural Law (an ethical philosophy), Divine Law (one of a higher power ethics) and the mere fact that adhering to either and/or both support that the freedoms we enjoy preexist Government.

The Constitution does not grant any rights to the people, it only delegates power, at the consent of the People to the Government for General Welfare and Common Defense. (Lay off it -- Everything else in the Constitution is administrative, i.e, creating of armies, senator rules, etc.)

Unfortunately for me, my children and family the People have not progressed with the ideals and vision of our forefathers but rather digressed straight back into servitude at the hand that feeds. Another thread I suppose....

Given that the men who rose up to break free of the bonds of servitude to an ever reaching and ever tyrannical system of Government used both Divine and Natural Law as their basis. More so Natural as it spoke to everyone, not just the religious and pious.

These can be seen clearly within the first 10 Amendments of the Constitution, which serve to protect the People and restrain the Government, not the other way around.

What is protected is that which every human being holds true to the core: Right to speak your mind, right to self preserve and self protection, the right to face your accuser and be judged by not a magistrate, but rather your peers, to be secure in your belongings, among others.

Amusing that we hold ourselves so highly and walk with such sophistication but cannot grant another human being those very basic tenets of law and ethics. Does not a person, regardless of where they are from, hold those truths to be self-evident? Because of their immigration status do they not deserve to be judged by their peers? Allowed to plead the 5th and not self incriminate?

To me, some very basic rights should be upheld if the person is on soil claimed by the United States of America. Then truly we can walk tall and proudly that we not only protect our own, but those that would otherwise be persecuted without equal justice and application of the law.

All that being said, if found to guilty of a crime and that, in say the case of illegal immigration, we as a nation and as a people retain our sovereignty and ability to remove the person; as they have infringed upon our laws and right to be secure in our belongings, collectively as a State or a Nation as a whole.




posted on May, 4 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by beyondsense
 


Great, that's your opinion, however, it's not the majorities. History is just that, history. La Razza (boy talk about a racist organization there) and the indians always bring up the distant past and expect things to go their way. Not gonna happen, in the words of the Democrats, "we won, you lost, get over it". The past has absolutely nothing to do with today, it's only used as an excuse for criminals to try and explain away their illicit activities. Epic fail.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by SpectreDC
 



I could have gone through your post and dissected it but after reading this I had to stop. The US Constitution does not afford rights to any person, it tells the government what it can and can not do to its people.


Do your really want to go this route? Okay, let me really break it down for you.

If the US Constitution restricts government on what it can do, does the US Constitution not afford rights to people?

Or let me put it real simply if the US Constitution did not exist and we lived under lets say North Korea's Constitution would we still have the rights of American citizens?

No we wouldn't. Just because technically the Constitution tells the government what it can and cannot do doesn't make the fact that the US Constitution grants us rights. Because if it wasn't for the Constitution then the rights wouldn't exist.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpectreDC

Originally posted by Light of Night
reply to post by SpectreDC
 


If somebody wants the rights afforded to people by the the US Constitution


I could have gone through your post and dissected it but after reading this I had to stop. The US Constitution does not afford rights to any person, it tells the government what it can and can not do to its people.

The following from Thomas Paine accurately paints the picture of what the framers of our constitution tried to do.




It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect — that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few. ... They...consequently are instruments of injustice. The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a contract with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.



US Constitution does afford rights the the citizens of the United States. Have you ever read the "Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution" of the Constitution? DipChit.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Light of Night
The DOI and US Constitution only applies to US Citizens. If somebody wants the rights afforded to people by the the US Constitution then they need to make the moves necessary to become a US Citizen.


As stated in my above post, the Constitution does not afford us with any rights. It protects rights that we, as humans find self-evident. Nor does it specifically and implicitly states that the rights are only limited to Citizens.

The philosophy is that all humans recognize such rights and those that are living upon the lands of the Several States shall enjoy the protections within the Constitution.

Do I think those that have broken the law be held accountable? Yep, absolutely. Do I think they should be able to declare that they also hold true the rights protected by our Constitution? Yep again, as they themselves are sovereign beings. The matter in which a law is applied and justice dispensed should be equal and without prejudgment.

Quick edit:

Afford:

2 : to make available, give forth, or provide naturally or inevitably

The Government does not make available our rights, as the Government is the People. If the People are making available the Rights protected under the Constitution, then those Rights can be taken away.

The Rights protected are just that, protected.

[edit on 4-5-2010 by ownbestenemy]



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
I didnt read the thread, but just by reading the title I completely agree, if your not for us, get the heck out, we dont need you.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by adifferentbreed
 


I think my dog can come up with a wiser reponse, but obviously, he's a German dog.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Where to begin....

1. The state derives power from the legal monopoly on the use of force. With this in mind, any and all freedoms that we have are for the benefit of the state itself. Coincidentally, we benefit from our state of freedomishness as well.

2. The state, being such, is first and foremost interested in maintaining its own existence and gaining greater control of the people (sometimes, this actually hurts the state).



The fundamental principles founded in this country are not laws given to us by the state.


The foundational premise that the state relies upon to exist is contrary to your statement. Our country was founded on a system of violence, and remains such.

3. Whatever glorified notion that you have that we are 'free' while the existence of the state is glorified is complete and utter insanity.



Our freedoms are not given to us by a piece of paper.


I agree with this statement, but the enemy of freedom is control based on a violent premise.... the state.



I'm going to say this next part slowly,


Does this mean you typed it slowly because I read it pretty fast.



Our rights aren't "granted", "allowed", "given", "acquired", or any similar terms. They are not LEGAL rights.


In a system that people like yourself rely on a state to maintain order (on any level), this statement is false.



American principles are founded on NATURAL LAW. Natural law, as the name identifies it as, is the law of nature, the law of God.


What the hell do you mean by American principles? America is not something to be hailed as the end-all to humanities struggle for freedom. Its a stepping stone... merely a stop on the way. Any and all principles based on natural law are not American, and all American principles based on the existence of the state are not based on Natural Law.

Calling me unAmerican to mean that I don't hold the same disingenuous beliefs about the country as you do seems like a compliment.

The constitution is a useless and ineffective piece of paper, Patriotism is severe Stockholm Syndrome, and America only uses Natural Law ideology as a talking point backed by inherently flawed premises like "the rule of law".

The hypocrite here is yourself. You speak the truth when you talk about Natural Law only to the point until you advocate the existence of the state to simultaneously preserve our rights and take them away.

I am sure we can agree on many things, but I don't care for your nostalgic view on America.

reply to post by Light of Night
 




Okay, lets just let everybody into the country without any background checks or anything.


How about we do background checks on everyone that is born here too? How about we keep being afraid to leave the house because some unnamed brown person might cut you or blow your car up?



Or better yet lets call everybody in the world American's and they are entitled to everything that we have.


The problem is, Americans (according to their own constitution) shouldn't be entitled... just not restricted. Entitlements are like the scraps of zebra that Scar gave the hyenas in Lion King.

...... damm.... since I started writing this, the thread became 5 pages from 2. sorry for not reading the pages 3-5, but frankly, the discussion already seems to be off the tracks.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by beyondsense
reply to post by SpectreDC
 


I think that, maybe except for some other nationalities, Mexicans have every right to cross the border and remain in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, California, etc., as long as they want, however they want, it's really their land as the U.S took it illegally from them. In other words, they're reclaiming what it's truly still theirs. Why do you think Los Angeles is called as such and not "The Angels", or Nevada isn't called "Snowed"? These are Mexican names. If anything the Americans who live there need to get the hell out and learn that they are living in occupied territory.

Peace!

OMG! Dude, we all got our land from someone else! The mexicans didnt just appear in Mexico overnight! Lets give them their land back then they can give back what they took from others so those others can give back what they took from others. Before you know it well all be one happy family with billions of people on 1 acre in the middle east or africa!



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by DINSTAAR
 




How about we do background checks on everyone that is born here too? How about we keep being afraid to leave the house because some unnamed brown person might cut you or blow your car up?


That doesn't make a lot of sense does it? When you are born you have no background.

I don't think people are afraid of leaving the house, but unfortunately a very high percentage of the crime committed in border states are perpetrated by people with brown skin. Just like an extremely high majority of the murders and crime in Mexico is committed by people with brown skin.

The whole race card thing getting played is getting very old, and no matter how much you try to deny it the facts speak for themselves.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Light of Night
 





If the US Constitution restricts government on what it can do, does the US Constitution not afford rights to people?


No, quite the opposite. Because people have rights, and because there are tyrants who would abrogate and derogate those rights, We the People, in order to form a more perfect Union, came together and Ordained a government mandated with protecting those rights. This Ordination of government has been restricted to a limited amount of power for a limited amount of time, and in no way have the People surrendered their inherent political power in order to have this government.




Or let me put it real simply if the US Constitution did not exist and we lived under lets say North Korea's Constitution would we still have the rights of American citizens?


Allow me to put it real simply. If North Koreans don't jealously guard their rights, and zealously defend them they will wind up with the government they deserve. The same applies for We the People here in The United States of America.




No we wouldn't. Just because technically the Constitution tells the government what it can and cannot do doesn't make the fact that the US Constitution grants us rights. Because if it wasn't for the Constitution then the rights wouldn't exist.


You have declare your argument right with offering no evidence to support your assumption. The Constitution is clear in its language, and there is no language to support your assertions that rights are granted by that Constitution, and there is plenty of language to support the argument that government has been prohibited from abrogating and derogating those rights. Even so, the strongest evidence to refute your argument, is that even with this Constitution in place, the government abrogates and derogates rights regularly.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Secular Ethics...... Universally Preferable Behavior.



A good video as a primer for this topic.



[edit on 4-5-2010 by DINSTAAR]



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   
I can tell a lot of people have been lied too and believe the lie.

The constitution does grant us rights. Have you ever wondered why the first 10 amendments are called "The Bill of Rights". If the Constitution is restricting the government from infringing upon those rights is the Constitution not granting us those rights?

If the Bill of Rights didn't exist would we still have those rights? No we wouldn't.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   
@ DINSTAAAR

I'm actually a left-libertarian/anarchist/minarchist/that ball park over yonder.

I'm merely arguing from the context in which the situation arose in. I don't argue for the existence of the state in fact I'm not arguing anything of the sort. My only point, the only point that comes strictly from my opinion (as well as the dictionary definition of hypocrisy but whatever) is that anyone who preaches about the founding fathers, the constitution, and the declaration of independence, yet ignores the presence of Natural Law within these ideas, is a hypocrite.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   
UnAmerican would be anyone who has supported Bush, Obama, and the last couple other presidents. Just like anyone who supports government is Unhumanitarian.
Obama has not been able to make 1 accomplishment.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Light of Night
I can tell a lot of people have been lied too and believe the lie.

The constitution does grant us rights. Have you ever wondered why the first 10 amendments are called "The Bill of Rights". If the Constitution is restricting the government from infringing upon those rights is the Constitution not granting us those rights?

If the Bill of Rights didn't exist would we still have those rights? No we wouldn't.



Few here are buying into your lies and pretzel logic. The Bill of Rights came after the Constitution which came after the Articles of Confederation, which came after the Declaration of Independence. Every step of the way, People spoke their minds freely, used arms to defend their right to speak and publish freely, and worshiped freely, and gathered peaceably together freely. They did this prior to the Bill of Rights, whence came those rights?

[edit on 4-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Light of Night


If the Bill of Rights didn't exist would we still have those rights? No we wouldn't.



YES, WE WOULD, THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF NATURAL LAW!

I don't know how to transmit this to you in any other fashion, Natural Law and Natural Rights are not granted onto you! You are born with them! The constitution acts as a means for the people to protect their natural law and their natural rights from the government!

The very concept of Natural Law tells us we would have these rights still. Does nature come after man? Does it come after government? No, people came from nature, and people created government. I don't see how NATURAL LAW can come after government.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Here is the proof that the Constitution does grant us rights.

1st Amendment


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


2nd Amendment


A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


4th Amendment


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


I'm not going to post anymore but I really hope people get the point by this point. The Constitution does grant us rights.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Light of Night
 

The Bill of Rights were not initially in the Constitution.

The tyrants immediately started taking rights away immediately. So the founders set up the Bill of Rights. These do not grant rights.

As others have stated, our rights are slowly being removed. Does that mean that they are still not in the Constitution? No, of course not.

It means we have allowed them, by the barrel of a gun to take them, AGAIN.

By you believing that a piece of paper grants rights, is the very tool they use to take them away.

I hear the priests (lawyers) argue that the government has the right to take rights for the betterment of the government or the betterment of the collective. This is their argument.

I am a sovereign individual. The only rights I have are ones that I declare, not ones written down. They remove your rights by the threat of force, period.




top topics



 
102
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join