It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by BABYBULL24
Why do you think they came up with 2012???
Get people focused on the end of world as they set-up their police state - no mystery.
Originally posted by Maluhia
I find it interesting and ironic that Ben Franklin opposed the bald eagle as the symbol for our country for the following reasons and yet it seems rather appropriate for our government today.
Franklin's Letter to His Daughter (excerpt)
"For my own part I wish the Bald Eagle had not been chosen the Representative of our Country. He is a Bird of bad moral Character. He does not get his Living honestly. You may have seen him perched on some dead Tree near the River, where, too lazy to fish for himself, he watches the Labour of the Fishing Hawk; and when that diligent Bird has at length taken a Fish, and is bearing it to his Nest for the Support of his Mate and young Ones, the Bald Eagle pursues him and takes it from him.
"With all this Injustice, he is never in good Case but like those among Men who live by Sharping & Robbing he is generally poor and often very lousy. Besides he is a rank Coward:
edit on 6-7-2012 by Maluhia because: (no reason given)
The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,(1) Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq.
First Barbary War
In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. 
Jefferson reported the conversation to Secretary of Foreign Affairs John Jay, who submitted the Ambassador's comments and offer to Congress. Jefferson argued that paying tribute would encourage more attacks. Although John Adams agreed with Jefferson, he believed that circumstances forced the U.S. to pay tribute until an adequate navy could be built. The U.S. had just fought an exhausting war, which put the nation deep in debt. Federalist and Anti-Federalist forces argued over the needs of the country and the burden of taxation. Jefferson's own Democratic-Republicans and anti-navalists believed that the future of the country lay in westward expansion, with Atlantic trade threatening to siphon money and energy away from the new nation on useless wars in the Old World. The U.S. paid Algiers the ransom, and continued to pay up to $1 million per year over the next 15 years for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. A $1 million payment in ransom and tribute to the privateering states would have amounted to approximately ten percent of the U.S. government's annual revenues in 1800.
What exactly have we become here, in this country? I remember watching Pearl Harbor with my wife years ago and I remember crying because I applauded heroes and those that risked there life to protect freedom and liberty and it was beautiful. What are we now? You have to ask yourself this question as it pertains to our morals and our basic outline of what this country should be.
:Lew Rockwell summed it up pretty well in this excerpt from Immorality Inc. written in 2006
We were never meant to create or start pre-emptive wars, we were only meant to protect our borders and those that are in VERY close alignment with our country as it pertains to National Security. We are not even world policing right now, we are actively plotting and executing invasion and take overs of countries. What in the hell are we doing?
Originally posted by Choice777
I find it very suspicious that soem individuals keep using "we" every half phrase.
"we see", "we know"...
Who exactly is we ?
If you as the OP have somethign ot say, say it out loud ..." I think, i know"..
Quit propagating your view as that of many.
Democratising Global Governance:
The Challenges of the World Social Forum
This paper sums up the debate that took place during the two round tables organized by UNESCO within the first World Social Forum in Porto Alegre (25/30 January 2001). It starts with a discussion of national processes, by examining democracy and then governance at the national level. It first states a case for a "joint" governance based on a combination of stakeholder theory, which is derived from corporate governance, and of UNESCO's priorities in the field of governance. As an example, the paper investigates how governance can deviate from democracy in the East Asian model. Subsequently, the global dimension of the debate on democracy and governance is examined, first by identification of the characteristics and agents of democracy in the global setting, and then by allusion to the difficulties of transposing governance to the global level.
turmoil on the planet between humans, humans and nature and the jump in science
You bet. When the bowl gets too full, it is time to flush. And seems to me too many think it is each person to himself and too many people will go down trying to grab more than they need, rather than pitch in to help turn this boat around. And, best place to hide malevolence is in disorder, so why would any of the many malevolent powers want to create order by helping?
Something isn't right here........
Am i the only one who feels evolution has stalled?
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The ambitions of petty tyrants have always been with us and will likely not go away anytime soon. The steady aggregation of power here in the United States has been happening perhaps ever since we trashed the Articles of Confederation of Perpetual Union and went with federalism. Even so, The Constitution for the United States of America that replaced this Article of Confederation eventually came with a Bill of Rights. A Bill of Rights many thought were unnecessary due to the express limitations all ready placed on the federal government and the implicit limitations many of our Founders believed were damn near express in that if the power wasn't expressly listed, that power was not expressly granted, thus that power did not exist within the federal government.
Today, those who have seen the steady aggregation of power and what it has done to We the People's Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness know full well it was a prudent move to create the Bill of Rights and even in that prudence so many of our friends and neighbors today have inexplicably and mysteriously come to believe that it is the Bill of Rights themselves that grant them their rights, and this in spite of the clear language of each Amendment that reads obviously as a prohibition on government not a grant of rights, and this in spite of the Ninth Amendment that makes expressly clear that none of the Amendments within the Bill of Rights are grants of rights. Thank God the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution and God Bless the wisdom that foresaw the need for the Ninth Amendment.
Even so, it is, as it has always been, expedience that has been the biggest threat to our own liberty. We have not, as if we ever could, had our rights taken away from us. We have willingly and mindlessly, perhaps too trustingly surrendered our rights in the name of expedience. Yet, as Thomas Jefferson wrote all those years ago, and to paraphrase him, there comes a time when going along to get along only takes us to a place where we no longer can get along. A time when expedience is no longer expedient, and a time when pragmatism is no longer practical. We seem to be irrevocably headed towards that time today.
I often hear it said that desperate times call for desperate measures, but this remark is only a justification for making bad strategies. Respectfully, I would argue that desperate times demand measured response. We must come to understand the problem with going along to get along. We must understand the profoundly contradictory notion of agreeing to disagree and insist that if we are all ever going to agree, then we must agree to agree. We must come to ask; how is it we can all ever agree upon surrender to tyranny? We must come to believe that we can, at some point, agree to agree on liberty once again. This kind of agreement requires a measured response to the petty tyrants and their sycophants.
Easier said than done, but I've never come to have a thing worth having that was easy to obtain.
It is We the People who do hold the inherent political power in this country, and it will be We the People who either succumb to tyranny or reign it in. We will never reign in tyranny by screaming for democracy and distracting ourselves with voting and the dog and pony shows of elections. We can only reign in tyranny by jealously guarding our rights and zealously defending them. That jealous guard and zealous defense need not be violent, but it must be sure and true. Without that, we will surely succumb.
Great thread, Brother. Thanks for your considered and necessary effort.
What the hell are we doing, indeed.