Today marks the 10th anniversary of the destruction of the American Constitution!!!

This is the opening paragraph, I agree with it.

Today marks the 10th anniversary of the destruction of the American Constitution. On October 26, 2001, the Bush administration and U.S. Congress passed the Patriot (Traitor) Act and used the false flag 9/11 attacks to sell it to the American people.

Below is the link to the full story,

disquietreservations.blogspot.com...

I guess the story speaks for itself. Sad that they have pulled this one over on us and continue to stay in office while they lie and make us pick up the tab for the violations To The Constitution and The American People, while they go on with "Business as Usual"

You could have picked a ton of other events for "The Destruction of the American Constitution."

Maybe the suspension of Habeas Corpus by Abraham Lincoln, The Federal Reserve, Roe v, Wade, Obama. And I'm not even trying. Why pick this one to talk about?

And can I expect that all your political posts will take the position that the American Constitution is immensely valuable and needs to be preserved?

Sigh....

I'm pretty sure the Constitution is still intact. Wether it's followed or not is a diffrent story. I guess it depends on who the prez is at the time. Untill they ban it, revoke it, burn it, kill it, declare martial law... It's still very much alive.... Especially as long as I am alive and armed. Which... Is one of the rights in the Constitution. So far, I'm still able to carry them, so I doubt seriously that the Constitution is dead.

reply to post by charles1952


Hello. I just want to be clear about a few things . I hope they answer and satisfy your concerns. First of all I didn't selectively choose any one thing that I feel was lost from The Constitution. You point out several other topics that could be also listed and I don't disagree. As far as answering your final question?

And can I expect that all your political posts will take the position that the American Constitution is immensely valuable and needs to be preserved?

The answer is yes, if it involves the authority of The Constitution or removing it's purpose and content. Do you think it is valuable and needs to be preserved?

reply to post by charles1952

Roe v, Wade

This threw me off.

Sorry I was in agreement with you and was about to star you, then I read Roe v Wade?

Back on topic......

I have said it time and time again.........There is no anonymity............none.........If you talk on a phone, internet, pay your cable, power, or any other bill, you can be found and tracked.......

Hell your picture can be taken from orbit

But, then again, Lj01 is pretty paranoid sometimes

reply to post by CherubBaby

Dear CherubBaby,

Thank you for your response. I can see that we are strolling down the avenue, arm-in-arm, smiling up at the birdies. (That's inflated metaphor for "I'm with you all the way." (Which, I suppose is another metaphor. (It's been a strange night. (I love nested parentheses))))

The only possible pitfall I see ahead is the question of how it is to be preserved. There seem to be two schools of thought. One is, the entire system is corrupt, tear it down and re-install a Constitutional government. The other is use conventional methods to elect non-corrupt officials and pass laws as needed.

To be honest I'm not tremendously excited about either, but I'm most worried about whether the new government created would actually be a Constitutional one.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

The other is use conventional methods to elect non-corrupt officials and pass laws as needed.

There are too many laws...........laws for laws on top of the old laws

We need a simpler system.......somehow. I do not know what or how....I do not personally believe that the system will change anytime soon.......we will just keep adding more laws to try to correct the problem for many years to come...........................................................

reply to post by liejunkie01


Dear liejunkie01,

I agree completely with your reluctance to take the gradual approach, it doesn't impress me either.

We need a simpler system.......somehow. I do not know what or how....I do not personally believe that the system will change anytime soon.......we will just keep adding more laws to try to correct the problem for many years to come...........................................................

I agree again. I don't have an answer other than that bit of old folk wisdom (which I just invented) "If you don't know what you're going to do, don't do it."

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

I agree completely with your reluctance to take the gradual approach, it doesn't impress me either.

If I offended you, then I apologize.

I type what I feel and I feel it is better to get to the point instead of typing a journal.............especially when the kids are acting crazy

When I read your post above. I assumed you threw R v W in there as a religous point. I feel there are too many laws stating what peoples rights are and are not based on somebody's beliefs................... If you did not, well then, my bad....

sorry for the bluntness

It's not dead, Jim.

It's s bit battered in spots, but CONgress hasn't managed to kill it yet.

Nor have Americans stopped fighting for its life.

M.

reply to post by Moshpet


My concern is the generation of people we have raised and the influx of people allowed into the country who have no regard for it. If the people understand and demand The Constitution be upheld then it will be regardless of Congress Etc. But if the people don't care then The Constitution is in real trouble.. thx and keep the faith

reply to post by liejunkie01


Dear liejunkie01,

Thanks for responding, and I'm sorry I didn't get back to you sooner.

That Roe v. Wade thing? I wasn't thinking about religion at all, but I can see where it would have caused a problem. My mistake.

The reason I included it wasn't because of the controversy over whether it was the right decision or not, that's for others to decide. I included it because the decision was base on the idea that the right to abortion was found within the "penumbras formed by emanations" of other rights mentioned in the Constitution. I know of very few lawyers who believe the reasoning makes any sense, even if they like the result. That was what I meant by including it in a destruction of the Constitution post.

With respect,
Charles1952