The founding fathers fraud the biggest scam since religion

reply to post by zarp3333


I guess you missed this.

You can't refute it. It is true and I dare you to watch it and deny it.
Stop believing what you hope with all your heart is true.
That alone doesn't make it so.

Originally posted by Masterjaden
Do you even understand how a republic like ours works? or rather, is supposed to work.

We have states that regardless of their population get two representatives in the senate and a number of representatives in the house of representatives based on population. (This is for a democratic republic BTW.)

That way smaller states are represented the same in the senate as the larger states, so population or mob rule isn't the deciding factor. All people get a voice and all people get an equal voice.

So you are basically equating a Republic with a Federal Republic in which the components, the states, are seen to be collectively equivalent to the collective of individuals and any legislation gets passed only when the majority of the people and majority of the states agree to it. By the way, the only democracy of that time, England, too had a second chamber of the parliament, the House of Lords, who collectively were seen to be the equivalent of the collective of the commoners and both the commons and Lords had to agree by a separate majority of each for a legislation to be passed. So the "achievement" of the founding bandits has been inventing an equivalent of the House of Lords in a place where no Lords existed, to protect the interests of the rich minority. Since originally the senators were appointed by the states and not elected by the people of the states they were representing, only those can be chosen that represent the minority.

But your "Republic" still doesn't protect the minority unless they are rich and powerful enough to be represented in the Senate. In other words your "Republic" was designed where a powerful minority can thwart the will of the majority people, but cannot execute its own will unless it also has the consent of the majority. In other words, it is "mob rule" with a difference, a "mob rule" that requires to be assented to by powerful interests.

Wasn't that obvious in its working where the natives continued to get massacred and blacks in the South continued to be held as slaves?

In our system, the Federal government was NEVER supposed to have the amount of power it has today, nowhere near, almost ALL power was supposed to be delegated to the states, with the exception of specific powers and regulations as defined by the one supreme document, the constitution. This was so the people of their respective states could decide how to run their own states but they would not be allowed to infringe on certain unalienable rights of their people, which would be enforced by the Federal government in turn for being able to implement limited taxation on the people.

Hmm... "Mob rule" was OK state level, but not at Federal level? Wonder why? You mean the "unalienable rights" of white bandits and their descendents, right? Because the states were free to treat some people like cattle and states and federal government were free and continued to treat some people like wild animals that could be hunted to clear them out of their habitat.

This has been corrupted, we are no longer functioning under our own government of by and for the people. We are corporate slaves, as the incorporated states and cities and federal government have taken away almost all of our rights.

Oh! My heart really goes out for you.

This was started after the civil war, because the civil war threw state sovereignty and rights out the window. Believe me, the civil war was NOT about slavery and the southern states would've eventually ended slavery on their own.

I don't know if the Southern states would have "eventually ended slavery on their own", but everyone with an understanding and knowledge of the US knows the civil war was not about slavery and WWII was not about saving Jews. They are simply unintended consequences that happened and can be used for publicity, pretty much like the colonists war against the crown being about "liberty".

The civil war happened because of a division in the ranks of the rich and powerful and the division was conveniently along some geographic boundaries. Simple as that.

reply to post by newcovenant

The author seemed to be saying that the word democracy was never mentioned in the Constitution, as though to conceal this concept from the people. I was arguing that a pure democracy equates to mob rule where 51% of the people decide the fate for the remaining 49%, which is probably why it was not emphasized.

As a matter of fact, Edward Bernays talks openly about one of the most commonly used themes in war time propaganda: "the spread of democracy".

I wasn't really defending our justice system nor would I defend most of whats going on today, which is probably not at all what the founding fathers envisioned.

reply to post by Observor

Originally posted by Observor
Wow! So instead of a "mob rule" you prefer a perpetual rule by hypocritical bunch of self-appointed authors of a Constitution who have been dead for a couple of centuries now?

Its not "mob rule", its mob rule. In a pure democracy, 51% (or more) of the people decide the outcome. The minority loses every time. So yes, I would prefer a nation of just laws not one of mob rule.

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by Observor

Originally posted by Observor
Wow! So instead of a "mob rule" you prefer a perpetual rule by hypocritical bunch of self-appointed authors of a Constitution who have been dead for a couple of centuries now?

Its not "mob rule", its mob rule. In a pure democracy, 51% (or more) of the people decide the outcome. The minority loses every time. So yes, I would prefer a nation of just laws not one of mob rule.

Like "just laws" written by bandits who continued to massacre the natives of the land and secure it for bandits like themselves?

Care to say how a "mob rule" could have been any worse? Oh! I guess some of these "just" bandits would have received a bit of what they dished out and that some how would have been worse than they not getting it?

I wonder if people realize this...perhaps the right to religious expression is there in the event that atheists should be in control of the government? Would we have the right to religious expression if atheists were in charge?

You see, as it is now, atheists have a right to express their views, but from what I have seen, many atheists do not want the rest of us to express our views. They say "oh I don't care if you do", then go on to tell us how they believe we are ignorant and stupid.

Just imagine, the United States as an atheist country. Would anyone have the right to religious expression under that? Perhaps the founding fathers were really thinking about that.

Originally posted by WarminIndy
You see, as it is now, atheists have a right to express their views, but from what I have seen, many atheists do not want the rest of us to express our views. They say "oh I don't care if you do", then go on to tell us how they believe we are ignorant and stupid.

That is them expressing their opinion, about your beliefs. Perhaps they don't want you to be "ignorant and stupid", but don't see them preventing you from being so. It is pretty much like Christians being convinced that atheists will burn in hell for eternity and some even saying so, but not forcing them to become Christian.

Ill look into what you present, but I cant think of a reason why the crown would stage an revolution. The cut in tax income was significant and probably only restored in the 20th century through the federal reserve system. What about the family of Washington? It would have had to be fiction too.

Originally posted by WarminIndy
I wonder if people realize this...perhaps the right to religious expression is there in the event that atheists should be in control of the government? Would we have the right to religious expression if atheists were in charge?

You see, as it is now, atheists have a right to express their views, but from what I have seen, many atheists do not want the rest of us to express our views. They say "oh I don't care if you do", then go on to tell us how they believe we are ignorant and stupid.

Just imagine, the United States as an atheist country. Would anyone have the right to religious expression under that? Perhaps the founding fathers were really thinking about that.

Yes, athiests should run the united states, it'd be the closest thing the united states would have to a sane leader.
Just their belief of evolution needs to be corrected, and we can get the truth about creationism and the annunaki out.......but thats another discussion.



Why would "god is real" be put into that patriotic video?
If he was real, people wouldn't need convincing, if he was THAT real.....
And yet alone subliminal convincing.
Thats just excluding every other subliminal message in there.

Strangely subliminal messages have never worked on me, im not sure if this is because im rh negative but i recently found a few techniques to add security to the brain.

People shouldn't have the rights to being religious, it's a gimmick, and it holds everyone back.
I refuse to let humanity destroy itself with religion.
They must be stopped at all costs, religious people and their brainwashing are dangerous be careful around them.

reply to post by newcovenant


interesting vid

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by zarp3333

 

I guess you missed this.

You can't refute it. It is true and I dare you to watch it and deny it.
Stop believing what you hope with all your heart is true.
That alone doesn't make it so.

Yeah great link man!
He really exposed the system in that video.
Guess it's true, the terrorists and their goons back in the uk won.
Counter terrorists lost the revolutionary war.
And now we today are suffering.
Rich men, aristocrats, signed the declaration of independence, it was not in favor of us, the common man, but for the traitors of humanity.

reply to post by Observor

At the end of the day, much of the system comes down to the gate keepers. If the gate keepers are corrupt, then the system will be as well, which I would argue is the cause of our problems.

If a person believes in equal rights, theres no way he or she can agree with the concept of a pure democracy in which the majority dictate the outcome for the minority. Laws, however, would grant everyone equal protection.

reply to post by gladtobehere


It's mainly because the people are just plain stupid, not the gate keepers.
Like George Carlin said - "Its not the politicians fault, it's the f- idiots who keep voting and supporting the system""

George Washington amassed more military troops.....to go against his own people...than he ever did to defeat England. Had to enslave his people to pay "damages" to England....over the people fighting for "Independence"...ha ha ha ha!!! They NEVER got it!


Benjamin Franklin was handling the deal to get King Louis and Queen Marie Antoinette out of France and into a French village created in Pennsylvania....because they loaned ole Benny Franklin lots of coin he couldn't repay and knew the French people were going to riot when they found out their country was bankrupted to fund the faux American war against England. Poor ole Queen Marie Antoinette never got to see the house built for her in Pennsylvania.

England really won the US Revolutionary War. It was all a scam. Changed who the local "Royalties" were across the pond. Nothing more.

Originally posted by SirClem
reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien

 

You cannot cite decisions from a court to implicate the "founding fathers" and the constitution when these opinions or rulings you are referencing all came after the fact.
The constitution....ANY embodiment of law requires an honest interpretation of that law. Words are simply words, often twisted and purposely misconstrued. Intent and meaning require GOOD FAITH, within any text, whether it be a listing of rights or simply an oral agreement.
In reality, there is NO system of government that cannot be corrupted. In a democracy, we are ALL corrupted by self-interest simply because the majority will always carry the day. In a democracy, you can vote out the protections of the minority.
In a Republic, you have representative government that is charged with upholding the constitution and the bill of rights, and weighing these LAWS against the wishes of the governed. It requires diligence on the part of the governed that the wishes of the governed do not TRUMP the constitution and the bill of rights.

You have corruption. That is your problem. Not the constitution, and not a fraud perpetrated on the unwitting masses. We didn't have a dumb ass populace back then, not like we do now. Now, we are hopelessly screwed by masses of ignorant apes that think they know everything.

The world has always been run by people that have a voice and know how to use it. The Americans sold their voice for security or a cheap bottle of wine. Take your pick. When you try to use your voice, you will see who lines up against you, and it is not the wealthy aristocrats, it is your ignorant neighbor.

edit on 10-9-2011 by SirClem because: Clarification

ive been trying to say this same thing lately, but certainly not as eloquent. like you said, its not the government or constitution that is corrupted, it is the people that act out in those institution.

and, oh my god, the last line hit the nail on the head

ive said it many times before, while we sit here arguing over nothing, fighting and dividing ourselves, those who really care, and really want to do something about the world we live in, rather than attempting to flex their intellectual muscles, are out in the field, boots on the ground, pounding the pavement, feeding the homeless, feeding refugees, rebuilding countries. trying their very hardest to go behind us and rip down all the division and walls we are putting up between one another.

reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien


Great I'm glad you feel that way (insert sarcasm) because the religions of the scientific establishment need to be gotten rid of (take out sarcasm) Really, everything needs to be just acknowledged for what it is.

Easily manipulable people shouldn't have the ability to vote period. People who don't understand how our government is supposed to work, shouldn't have the right to vote. No one should be able to dictate what someone else's beliefs are. Not you, not I not anyone.

That's the reason for implementing the freedom of religion as a basic premise for freedom.

You replacing one religion with your own doesn't make it any more right...lol

At least some people acknowledge that their beliefs are actually beliefs, you can't even do that and want to force your beliefs on everyone around you. In case your wondering that's called fascism, or is at least a bi product of fascism.

Jaden

Originally posted by WarminIndy
I wonder if people realize this...perhaps the right to religious expression is there in the event that atheists should be in control of the government? Would we have the right to religious expression if atheists were in charge?

You see, as it is now, atheists have a right to express their views, but from what I have seen, many atheists do not want the rest of us to express our views. They say "oh I don't care if you do", then go on to tell us how they believe we are ignorant and stupid.

Just imagine, the United States as an atheist country. Would anyone have the right to religious expression under that? Perhaps the founding fathers were really thinking about that.

Yes! You are right. The Founding Fathers were all religious people, not atheists. Many people argue they were Deists not Christians, but they were Christians. I found a wikipedia breakdown of the various Christian denominations. The only variationos in religion were Christian denomination. Even those who were Masons were also Christians. You are also right in that when the colonists came to America, many were looking for religious freedom, freedom from persecution of their religious values. Our Founding Fathers wanted to protect that right. One need only look to history to know that religious persecution has persisted through the centuries.
Today we see Sharia law creeping into traditionally Christian bulwarks. Why do atheists not care about that but Christians do? Because Christians know what will be the outcome.
I have had enough of atheists condemning Christians then turning around and defending Sharia Law.

reply to post by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien



The Founding Fathers and Freemasonry

Freemasons and the U.S. Declaration of Independence bessel.org...

John Hancock Saint Andrew's Lodge in Boston, 1762
William Ellery First Lodge of Boston, 1748
Benjamin Franklin Grand Master of Pennsylvania, 1734
Joseph Howes Unanimity Lodge No. 7
William Hooper Hanover Lodge in Masonborough, N.C.
Robert Paine Attended Massachusetts Grand Lodge in 1759
Richard Stockton Charter Master of St. John's Lodge in Princeton NJ 1765
George Walton Solomon's Lodge No. 1, in Savannah GA
William Whipple St. John's Lodge, Portsmouth NH 1752

Freemasons & the U.S. Constitution

39 men signed the U.S. Constitution 13 (33%) were Freemasons

George Washington was initiated into Masonry when a young man, but in his mature years it was distasteful to him to be addressed as a Mason - and of Masonry and secret societies he said
saintsalive.com...

,... they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government

John Adams - The Second President of the United States - never joined a secret society. His son, John Quincy Adams, wrote, August 22, 1831 of him: “There was nothing in the Masonic Institution worthy of his seeking to be associated with it.

John Quincy Adams The Sixth President of The United States “I am prepared to complete the demonstration before God and man, that the Masonic oaths, obligations and penalties, cannot, by any possibility, be reconciled to the laws of morality, of Christianity, or of the land.”

Samuel Adams The Father of the Revolution “I am decidedly opposed to all secret societies whatever!”

John Hancock President of the Continental Congress “I am opposed to all secret societies.”

James Madison The Fourth President of the United States “From the number and character of those who now support the charges against Freemasonry, I cannot doubt that it is at least susceptible of abuse, outweighing any advantages promised by its patrons.”

please remove

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by Daedal

 

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Daedal


So what! The Framers of the Constitution knew that their heads could be hanging from a scaffold, in which case all their money would not have mattered. Did you think they expected immediate wealth to spring from the Revolution? They knew what they were up against, unlike people here who think that govt is the source of all the milk of human kindness.
edit on 11-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


I'm not here to argue with you man,nor to debate you.Just to help give a perspective to the possible note that maybe their were other factors that attributed to reasons behind drafting the Constitution.That's it..

I can say I am right,you can say you're right,but when it really comes down to it it's all opinion.

Thanks for reading my reply

It's not all opinion. In a nutshell, colonies were operating under the Articles of Confederation, which were soon to reveal some glaring deficiences. States Rights Gone Wild, if you will. States printing their own currencies, forming their own armies, making their own foreign policies, etc. etc. They were scrapped in favor of the Constitution which had we stuck with, would have given us a strong nation with sane states rights. Instead we got people like FDR.

What I was referring to by saying that it's all opinion was in context of the quoted portion of my post in regards to the conspiracy issues,not the factual element or historical data that can be verified,but rather the opinions formulated to prove the founding fathers interest in drafting the Constitution for purposes other than suggested by the authors perspective.

If you read the whole post and the subsequent reply by horus,and viewed the source,there were many opinions based off what they,"the authors",represented in their work,which is conjecture and opinion.