Originally posted by endisnighe
Hey, whoever posted the SourceWatch links, thanks. I am glad you gave us another progressive site to take a look at.
Take a look at the SOURCES they use. New York times, Huffington Post blah blah blah.
Thank you for pointing out something that very few people seem to notice.
From what I've seen of the Tea Party, most
of them are decent people who are tired of watching their country crumble down around their
Here's a basic core truth: Most people are the decent sort, but rats come in all colors.
Any time you get a large group of people together for any kind of cause, just the mere law-of-averages will dictate that at least a small number of
rats will join the group. Rats will join mostly for their own personal reasons...One of which is to try discrediting the majority of the group (Go
ahead & Google "Crash the Tea Party" for one example, that was poorly executed).
Then comes the media to "cover the event." There's a very high majority of MSM that cater to the
leftist/socialist/libral/whatever-you-want-to-call-it interests that the rats thrive on...Which mostly boil down to the "interests" of
gaining/establishing the power of mass-control. The conservative side of MSM is a very small minority in comparison. So the left-side tilt of the MSM
majority (read: JournOlist...Look it up) simply point their cameras at the rats mingled in a group & spins it to include the group on the whole as
being the same as the rats.
So I reiterate what you say in your post...Check your sources, people!
I get my sources from both the left & the right to help me figure out
what's really going on behind the smokescreen. I'm referring to the smokescreen that is put in front of us to distract
us from the core
truths of what's happening in my country. Yes, it's my country
because the Constitution establishes the fact that I'm a member of the single
biggest Board of Directors that's supposed to be in charge
of how this nation works...I'm one of WE THE PEOPLE, a joint-owner of our
government. All officers under the Public Trust are my employees
& the Constitution is their contract of employment under all Americans.
Here's another core truth: The US Government has been ever-increasingly violating our Constitution, our employment contract, at least since Abraham
Lincoln put forth Executive Order 1
. Take note that all Executive Orders are Law-violating
usurpations of the legislative powers granted to Congress as per lawfully binding Oath of Office
established by the Constitution. Not only
that, even EO1 (Emancipation Proclamation) seemed to be
in accordance with the Constitution by freeing the slaves, it was specifically
worded/enforced to have effect only on the Confederate States! All other States were excluded
, which means that enforcement of EO1 constitutes
"unequal treatment" of the States, along with
the Crime of bypassing the established Legislative Power in Congress!
We've been going downhill ever since...What most in the Tea Party (& by the demographics of our population, the majority of Americans) are really
concerned about is what are we going to do about this deeply-entrenched criminal organization that has usurped our government. With very few
exceptions (Ron Paul for one notable example; check his public records of Office to confirm), our government has been subsumed by Organized Career
I want to support our troops, but in these times, the best way to support them is to bring them home to defend our country
, as demanded in the
Constitution. Currently, there's a bit over 190 countries on this planet & we have an occupying military force in just over 130 of them! this is a
result of the "empire-building mentality" pervasively infiltrating our government & the end of WW 2 was the jump-start they used to get going. Our
Constitution is contructed to downplay a national, standing army in favor of a civilian-oriented defense...Hence the 2nd Amendment. With over 300
million people here, with well over half being physically & mentally capable of "owning & bearing arms," it would be sheer folly for any foreign
nation to invade us. Another advantage for a civilian-oriented defense is so the People can resist/prevent any fundamental changes in our government
that would destroy all of the Founding Principles that made us into a nation.
Whenever any politician (or other style of "talking head") tries to tell you that certain actions are in the "national interests," it's an
if such action is not "in pursuance" of the Constitution: The Constitution defines
national interests, with everything
being the interests of the States & the People. This is the nature of the 10th
. In other words, if it's not specified in the Constitution, then the US government is violating the Supreme Law of the Land if they
do it. Any action taken by any Officer in the US Government that violates the Constitution (as the Supreme Law of the Land) is automatically a
, at the bare minimum.
The government is not (& never was) the true power of any nation, the People are/were. People create governments & people destroy governments; This is
a truth of history, worldwide. The US Founding Fathers were not backwoods, country bumpkins...They were well-educated, widely read, intelligent people
who were entrusted by the People to represent them ("We the People... ...do ordain & establish
) in the creation of a general government to oversee a limited number of tasks & with limited Powers over those tasks. By
the 10th Amendment, the States & the People reserve all but a very few Powers to themselves.
Originally posted by SeventhSeal
Want the government out of their lives but yet want the government to kick out immigrants. Want the government out of their lives but want the
government to outlaw Abortion and Gay marriage.
Here's a couple of very good twisted statements...Only accounting for by patially listening
to what someone says. quite probably twisted
originally by leftist MSM.
For one: I don't think government should be kicking out immigrants...Only the illegal immigrants
; By violating our Immigration Laws, they're
already committing Felony Criminal Trespass! After all, the US Goverment was Constitutionally charged with the duties concerning immigration. The US
immigrates the highest number of people than any other country in the world...There isn't any other nation even as a
close-running second place
. But it's the Executive Branch's illegal, abject refusal
to enforce immigration laws that has caused this
problem...Indeed, both Bush & Obama have tried to use "conditional enforcement" of the immigration laws in order to intice (read: extort) Congress
into legislating broad amnesties. It happened once (a blanket amnesty a few years ago), but the illegal
immigration has only gotten worse. this
is a prime example of NOT considering the WHOLE issue, but instead just calling up a "talking point" that addresses nothing in particular.
In support of the "less government" issue, if they would get rid of all of these unconstitutional agencies & programs, there would
money to enforce Constitutional compliance with Immigration Laws.
Second: The government had no Constitutional authority to even create "legal marriages" in the first place...I'm talking about the kind of marriage
for which you need a license. This kind of marriage is nothing more (& nothing less) than a merger of two corporations...It has nothing to do with
personal commitment, religious preferences or love. However, the Common Law Marriage is a "personal contract" not a "commercial contract." A
Common Law marriage doesn't require a liscense to conduct personal affairs, whereas a Legal Marriage is a commercial contract requiring a license,
just like businesses which fall under the government's controls concerning commerce.
The "corporate merger" of a Legal Marriage is based upon what kind of "production" the new company can perform. Ergo, since a gay marriage can't
produce new taxpayers...er, ummm...children, the government would be more likely to oppose it (ie: deny the license application). By denying the
license, the government isn't denying "gay marriage," per se
...they're denying the license for a business merger. So gay couples should
really be considering a Common Law marriage instead of a Legal Marriage.
This also is another issue in support for limiting the government
, all without trying to force personal ideals down everyone's throats. We
don't need the government's "permission" to make personal commitments to each other, regardless of race, color, creed & religious or sexual
Third: Abortion is
a matter of individual choice, already governed by the individual's health issues & personal will. Again, the government
has no Constitutional authority
to intervene (or fund) either side this issue. It's determined primarily by individual choice, sound medical
advice & somewhat regulated already by the costs & expenses incurred through insurance companies, (who are quite capable of "calculating risk,"
regardless of the government) which are already regulated by each State
Wow, there's the concept of "limiting government" again! Who'd have thought?
It's not like this concept isn't already an intrinsic part of the construction of the Constitution...
[edit on 1-8-2010 by MidnightDStroyer]