"This agreement hands the sovereignty of our country over to corporate interests."

Originally posted by Habit4ming
As others have stated on numerous occasions, it certainly appears that TPTB are attempting to prod the American people into a violent revolution scenario.

Of course, many of us want our government back, our Republic--of by and for The People! I had hoped that it could be achieved by the electoral process, but that, too, is corrupt. Unless we go back to paper ballots, hand counted, I don't see a restoration of our country occurring via the election process.

Unfortunately, for some time, I have "felt" (and I mean that literally) that violent revolution is going to happen. It makes me sad, I do not want this, but nonetheless, I feel it will occur and probably soon (like within a decade). I pray I'm wrong.

The revolution winners will be those wishing to restore our country to Constitutional law. They will remember:

Reid vs. Covert - The Constitution supersedes international treaties
Marbury vs. Madison - All laws repugnant to the Constitution are null and void

I also hope that they decide to thoroughly scrutinize exactly how the country got to the brink of toppling and remedy THAT situation so it never occurs again...

Great post. Our founders wrote the constitution at a time when the country had a population smaller than Rhode Island They didn't see how corporate interests would partner with Government coupled with rampant corruption to destroy their vision. I still feel the constitution is sacred to Americans and shouldn't be trampled on or abused for someones agenda. It would be interesting to take an ATS Poll to see what percent of Americans (represented from ATS at least) would seek to change the Constitution., for what reasons how and why. Is it outdated do people think?

Originally posted by olaru12
We were warned about the Fascist Corporate takeover long ago during the Bush administration; but when you pointed it out you were labeled a commie or socialist. And told "America, love it or leave it"

Honestly - that was old by the mid-seventies.

www.populistdaily.com...

What astonishes me is the conservatives hatred toward Obama when in reality he is actually more of a neocon than bush.

Political theater - "Politics is the entertainment arm of the Military-Industrial Comples" Frank Zappa

The new wars ahead sponsored and fought by the likes of KBR and Halliburton are going to be a republican wet dream. In fact the American military will be told how to fight the future wars by corporate types and not generals or majors.
www.sourcewatch.org...


It's a brave new world....dance monkey dance!!

edit on 22-6-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)

BINGO!! BIG BUSINESS. Definition of 'free enterprise' = private profit at public expense. YIPPE-KAI-YAY!!

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Originally posted by Habit4ming
As others have stated on numerous occasions, it certainly appears that TPTB are attempting to prod the American people into a violent revolution scenario.

Of course, many of us want our government back, our Republic--of by and for The People! I had hoped that it could be achieved by the electoral process, but that, too, is corrupt. Unless we go back to paper ballots, hand counted, I don't see a restoration of our country occurring via the election process.

Unfortunately, for some time, I have "felt" (and I mean that literally) that violent revolution is going to happen. It makes me sad, I do not want this, but nonetheless, I feel it will occur and probably soon (like within a decade). I pray I'm wrong.

The revolution winners will be those wishing to restore our country to Constitutional law. They will remember:

Reid vs. Covert - The Constitution supersedes international treaties
Marbury vs. Madison - All laws repugnant to the Constitution are null and void

I also hope that they decide to thoroughly scrutinize exactly how the country got to the brink of toppling and remedy THAT situation so it never occurs again...

Great post. Our founders wrote the constitution at a time when the country had a population smaller than Rhode Island They didn't see how corporate interests would partner with Government coupled with rampant corruption to destroy their vision. I still feel the constitution is sacred to Americans and shouldn't be trampled on or abused for someones agenda. It would be interesting to take an ATS Poll to see what percent of Americans (represented from ATS at least) would seek to change the Constitution., for what reasons how and why. Is it outdated do people think?

edit on 23-6-2013 by JohnPhoenix because: sp

While I agree that The Constitution is to be our 'operating principle' I do object to calling it sacred. Sacred is a clearly religious term denoting a text that is: 1) divinely authored 2) inviolate and, most importantly 3) not subject to change. Our Constituion was written to be a working document, open to ammendment and revision at need and thereby our founders forsaw the need for flexibility to account for changing circumstances. Remember this was a time of Enlightment - whole new worlds were opening up - they relizalized that change would come and thay they could not forsee what that change would be and so gave us a document - a set of principles and a set of institutions that could, could be flexible and strong for WE THE PEOPLE into an unknown future.

The Constitution is still a very new experiment and if we harden it into stone by worshiping it as sacred - we kill the very life out of it.

reply to post by FyreByrd

Our Constituion was written to be a working document, open to ammendment and revision at need and thereby our founders forsaw the need for flexibility to account for changing circumstances.

sacred does not always have religious connotations, it commonly means "deserving of respect". the founding fathers made amending the constitution very difficult for a reason. the most important parts of the constitution aren't even changeable. the rights one has are inalienable; the founding fathers recognized them as merely being expressed in the constitution, NOT established by it.

one cannot amend away rights. the document was made as rigid as possible so that it would take a long time for a government to usurp the principles, and before that happened they hoped that there would be another revolution to restore freedom and common sense.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

Our Constituion was written to be a working document, open to ammendment and revision at need and thereby our founders forsaw the need for flexibility to account for changing circumstances.

sacred does not always have religious connotations, it commonly means "deserving of respect". the founding fathers made amending the constitution very difficult for a reason. the most important parts of the constitution aren't even changeable. the rights one has are inalienable; the founding fathers recognized them as merely being expressed in the constitution, NOT established by it.

one cannot amend away rights. the document was made as rigid as possible so that it would take a long time for a government to usurp the principles, and before that happened they hoped that there would be another revolution to restore freedom and common sense.

Thank you for pointing out the actual definition of sacred. However, the connotation is religious and in in practise means "unchangeable".

I think you are mistaken in saying that the founders made the constitution 'rigid' and would ask for your source.

Rights cannot be taken away under the constitution - agreed. But they are and have been many times.

Believing the constitution is 'rigid', 'unchageable' and 'perfect' is nothing but tribal arrogance and the founders did not intend that.

Originally posted by FortAnthem



Apparently their main reason for keeping this secret is so the American people don't find out what's in it and skin them alive before they can shove this thing down our throats. Even Grayson's comments on what he read are being classified so we can't read them.

It looks like our government is finally ready to sell us all out to the corporate interests of the world and they're so scared we'll find out they're keeping the whole thing classifies Top Secret. Gotta love how our elected representatives really look out for us huh?

edit on 6/21/13 by FortAnthem because:

I was under the impression that corporate interest already dominated US political agenda. Whats good for ford is good for America, no? The US has the biggest corporations in the world, what ever this treaty was will serve Americas (corporate) interests.

Just learned about this and I am seeing how Obama / Harper is trying to quietly pass this without the people finding out. Doesn't pass the smell test at all - this is a huge push towards a New World Order.