"If we do not have TIMELY Congressional Oversight, and Investigations into breaches of LAW, or Checks and Balances between the Executive, Legislature, and Judicial Branches, as described in the Constitution of the USA,
or have folks within the Department of Justice upholding their Constitutional Obligations INSTEAD of looking the other way,
have we lost our REPUBLIC and found another form of Government?"

-Just Wondering

Congressional Oversight- as in when there should have been someone saying ‘No, You can’t abuse prisoners’?

Investigations into criminal wrongdoing? Last I heard, there was a vote against even CONDUCTING A HEARING into whether or not Bush/Cheney was crook. They weren’t even compelled to ask questions...

Checks and balances- as in Congress asking Cheney to come answer some questions (and not even under oath) and him being allowed to say NO?????

Lastly and most disgraceful have been the betrayal of the Department of Justice. I saw John Yoo and David Addington come down for a little Q and A in the halls of congress and I can tell you that neither man gave a rat’s ass about the constitution OR the people. To them it was a game of how much they could get away with at the expense of liberty and the American ideals of our founding fathers.

So I’ll end with the quote from Benjamin Franklin you all know:

A lady asked Dr. Franklin:

“Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy?”

“A republic,” replied the Doctor

“...if you can keep it.”

I in no way meant to offend, at times my fingers move faster then my brain…

Yeah; it happens to the best of us. ;-)

I don't think anyone here means to unfairly attack you, Larry, but you can hardly expect them not to defend their deepest held convictions when they perceive them as being under attack.

Anyway, water under the bridge.

Michael wrote:

I’m all for moving on and focusing on what we can agree on - and that seems to be that the federal government is no longer a federal one, but instead a national one.

Well, it isn't supposed to be either one exclusive to the other. The original system involved both national and federal characteristics. But you're right, since federalism has almost altogether been abandoned it has become heavily imbalanced and national.

Michael wrote:

I’m all for moving on and focusing on what we can agree on - and that seems to be that the federal government is no longer a federal one, but instead a national one.

Well, it isn't supposed to be exclusively one or the other. It originally took on both national and federal characteristics. But you're right, the federal principle has been largely abandoned so it is almost exclusively, now, a 'national' government.

I believe in the final analysis liberty is not an accident of nature or history. It is the product of a people’s culture and temperament and has as its ultimate source their religion and morality. I do not think the Hindu religion with its worship of idols and caste system can ever produce a dynamic, scientifically investigative, politically free and just society. It is only by Western (Christian) influences that the Hindu Brahman caste system of class oppression is being mollified and broken down. I do not think Islam can produce a free, self governing people. Their religion is inherently violent and totalitarian; conform or die. Buddhism is another system of idol worship and has kept the Chinese in slavery to a Communist dictatorship for generations. Catholic and the Orthodox churches are ossified relics left over from the middle ages that consist in little more than bear ritualism, which cannot provide an ethical structure or dynamic world view capable of sustaining freedom.

The list goes on. Only Christianity has the dynamics capable of impacting culture in a continuously positive way, lifting man, lifting morals, teaching us to love our neighbor, to do unto others as we would have them do unto us; it teaches us not to fear the tyrant but to speak up for the right regardless of the cost; to live by and die for a code that transcends earthly existence.

This said, some of the talk or rhetoric about secession is to awaken the moral alacrity and righteous indignation in men that causes them to leave aside lesser cares and stand upon principle and the right not to have Christianity erased from the landscape by usurping federal judges. Sometimes I fear that the quality of men’s faith today has become so weak and insubstantial that what matters most is our retirement plans and creature comforts. How else can you explain the whole State of Alabama caving in to the order of Myron Thompson that the Ten Commandments monument be removed from the State Supreme Court building? How else to explain the total cave-in except that people just don’t care enough about things eternal, and have lowered their vision to the “flesh pots of Egypt”? That certainly was not true 150 years ago. An order like that would have produced an immediate, violent flare up of anger and outrage. I suspect that any judge purporting to make such an order 150 years ago would have been lucky to get out of town alive. That is no exaggeration.

Or, maybe people do care, but have been conditioned by the endless, incremental assault spanning most of our lifetimes to think they must accept this, as if America was predestinated to become a secularized State; as if there is nothing that can or should be done; that the whole of our Christian faith is summed up in “moral capitulation and fatalism”. If we talk about secession please understand that we are reaching out beyond the norm to some “ultimate” out there somewhere that breaks the paradigm of creeping secularism and socialism; reaching beyond the norm of our time when people don’t care enough to do anything, holding out a vision that says “we can, we may, we must” but only if we will.

"But, as an aside, you’ve written about taking me to the wood shed and beating sense into me, and then about how you could have ‘literally ripped a certain someone in this thread apart."

Let's not be hypocritical, nor self-righteous. This whole treatment of the constitution requires that we have disagreement, and serious disagreement, on its principles. Our founding fathers ripped their anti-federalist opponents apart any number of times in the federalist papers. Do you attribute the same character to them as you do to me? Good. I take it as a compliment, and find myself in pretty good company.

Let's get the clear perspective. We the people have to determine when the federal government has usurped authority and must deal appropriately and proportionally. One can never expect to live in freedom while the usurpers of freedom maintain the power used to enslave the people. Does it appear that the federal government has any intentions of obeying the constitution? if your answer is no, then why waste your time in trying to maintain a system that is corrupted in nature, character and practice?

What you have to realize is that maintaining a union for mere purposes of maintaining a union (say, because you are afraid of foreign nations) will accomplish nothing. Slavery is slavery, no matter what government enslaves you. As our founders resounded, any government action taken outside of its authority granted from the sovereign of that government (that is, we the people) is tyranny and must be resisted with equal and proportional force. Ultimately, is is our responsibility, along with the state legislators, to protect this federalism and republican form of government.

Many of you understand this concept but have different ways, means and conclusions on what it will take to restore the republic, whether it be breaking the US into a confederacy of states or reverting back to pre-1787 sovereign state-hood.

While I may disagree with some of you on your approaches to the ends of freedom, we all know that we the people MUST gain control of government once again and must use approaches different from those used in the past 120 years.

It is as Thomas Paine said in his politically motivating book, Common Sense, “there is a proper time for it to cease". The context of this quote comes from his observation that it was time for the American Colonies to forget the notions of staying united with Great Britain for expediency's sake; thus, "there is a proper time for it to cease". Instead, the alternative approach to wanting to stay united was to declare independence from the nation, which while it provided the colonies security and defense from foreign attack, was becoming its own sort of dictator.

As a result, those who changed our history shook the chains of tyranny off--chains that were forged by their own government. We the people have a similar decision to make. While we certainly would love to see our federal government withdraw its attack on our freedoms, their intentions are evident and apparent. As John Locke said (the phrase of which was adopted by Thomas Jefferson int he Declaration of Independence), where the long train of abuses evidence the intentions of tyrannical governments, it is the duty of we the people to throw off such tyranny and to establish or re-establish the forms of government to secure the ends of freedom. Anything short of that is to shirk our civic duty to our fellow citizen and family.

Thus, while I respect those who would advocate union for the sake of union, I do believe that such persons are about 3-5 years behind the times and I do not believe that such persons see the real issue confronting the decision we are now facing regarding: to live (or die) as free men, or to live (or die) as voluntary slaves. If our founders adopted a worldview of "union before freedom", undoubtedly the United States of America would have never existed.

Terry and Patrick,

Interesting comments both. I have a few comments to add to yours.

1. Regarding Britain and its power, that was a long time ago, and a very different time. Its size was measured by the size of its naval fleets and its military prowess. Show me where Britain is today, compared to say, China, Russia, the United States. You get the idea. It is small and stays connected to the USA to remain a player in the international arena.

2. For a decade, Russian academic Igor Panarin has been predicting the U.S. will fall apart in 2010. For most of that time, he admits, few took his argument -- that an economic and moral collapse will trigger a civil war and the eventual breakup of the U.S. -- very seriously. I'm just ornery enough to stay united just to prove him wrong. How about you?

3. Our problems with the federal government have been increasing for over a hundred years, and yes, Patrick, the illegal creation of the Fed on Jekyll Island on November 22, 1910 was one of the more notable events we should be sorry for and should reverse as soon as possible. We have seen in the last thirty years the effect the international banks and speculators have had on our economy, but we are not alone. Some countries have been ruined, and so may our own country if we aren't smart. But we do have to regain control over our own money system. Screw the Fed.

4. The steps toward socialism, communism, and progressive government and away from the guidelines and restrictions in our constitutional republican government have been going on for the last 100 years - by all political parties. Certainly all recent governments, again, regardless of political party, have been ignoring our nation's laws and doing just whatever they could get away with in their own time. Obama knows this, and he's taking full advantage of the fact the American people are asleep.

5. TownHall had a very good article this morning (http://tinyurl.com/nttvp9) entitled: "Senior Democrat Says Obama's Czars Unconstitutional," by Ken Klukowski. Wow! what a disclosure. The Dems ranks are not all that united. That's a good thing.

6. (I borrow the following expressions from Judge Andrew Napolitano) The states created the federal government, and inasmuch as the Constitution begins with "We the people," it was really "We the States" that formed the U.S. Constitution and the resultant federal government. My point here is that the real power over the federal government resides in the states, and the states can stop playing games with the feds whenever they want to. And without secession.

7. The Civil War was fought over state’s rights, and it is a shame the South did not win. The CSA had the right idea about state’s rights, but the North won because Lincoln brought in the slavery issue to stir up the northerners, and so we now have a more powerful central government. But the issue of state’s rights has not been addressed and resolved again until now, so let’s ‘get ‘er done’ right this time.

I suggest for you both: Get involved with your state legislators and tell them what you want them to do. Meet with and talk to your neighbors about the problems you see in our country today. Go back to school - relearn your own American history. Study economics, and the law. Etc. You get the idea. America is the land of the individual, and your individual strengths and contributions are important to us all.

And, BTW, this is still the best country on God's green earth.

From the WALL STREET JOURNAL

This is the most encouraging article I have read in LONG Time. Ever since the guy who refused to release his long form birth certificate declared June "Lesian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month" I have come to view secession as the only MORALLY responsible thing descent people can work and pray for. Apparently the Wall Street Journal agrees!

Divided We Stand June 13, 2009

What would California look like broken in three? Or a Republic of New England? With the federal government reaching for ever more power, redrawing the map is enticing, says Paul Starobin

By PAUL STAROBIN

Remember that classic Beatles riff of the 1960s: “You say you want a revolution?” Imagine this instead: a devolution. Picture an America that is run not, as now, by a top-heavy Washington autocracy but, in freewheeling style, by an assemblage of largely autonomous regional republics reflecting the eclectic economic and cultural character of the society.

There might be an austere Republic of New England, with a natural strength in higher education and technology; a Caribbean-flavored city-state Republic of Greater Miami, with an anchor in the Latin American economy; and maybe even a Republic of Las Vegas with unfettered license to pursue its ambitions as a global gambling, entertainment and conventioneer destination. California? America’s broke, ill-governed and way-too-big nation-like state might be saved, truly saved, not by an emergency federal bailout, but by a merciful carve-up into a trio of republics that would rely on their own ingenuity in making their connections to the wider world. And while we’re at it, let’s make this project bi-national—economic logic suggests a natural multilingual combination between Greater San Diego and Mexico’s Northern Baja, and, to the Pacific north, between Seattle and Vancouver in a megaregion already dubbed “Cascadia” by economic cartographers.

Devolved America is a vision faithful both to certain postindustrial realities as well as to the pluralistic heart of the American political tradition—a tradition that has been betrayed by the creeping centralization of power in Washington over the decades but may yet reassert itself as an animating spirit for the future. Consider this proposition: America of the 21st century, propelled by currents of modernity that tend to favor the little over the big, may trace a long circle back to the original small-government ideas of the American experiment. The present-day American Goliath may turn out to be a freak of a waning age of politics and economics as conducted on a super-sized scale—too large to make any rational sense in an emerging age of personal empowerment that harks back to the era of the yeoman farmer of America’s early days. The society may find blessed new life, as paradoxical as this may sound, in a return to a smaller form.

This perspective may seem especially fanciful at a time when the political tides all seem to be running in the opposite direction. In the midst of economic troubles, an aggrandizing Washington is gathering even more power in its hands. The Obama Administration, while considering replacing top executives at Citigroup, is newly appointing a “compensation czar” with powers to determine the retirement packages of executives at firms accepting federal financial bailout funds. President Obama has deemed it wise for the U.S. Treasury to take a majority ownership stake in General Motors in a last-ditch effort to revive this Industrial Age brontosaurus. Even the Supreme Court is getting in on the act: A ruling this past week awarded federal judges powers to set the standards by which judges for state courts may recuse themselves from cases.

All of this adds up to a federal power grab that might make even FDR’s New Dealers blush. But that’s just the point: Not surprisingly, a lot of folks in the land of Jefferson are taking a stand against an approach that stands to make an indebted citizenry yet more dependent on an already immense federal power. The backlash, already under way, is a prime stimulus for a neo-secessionist movement, the most extreme manifestation of a broader push for some form of devolution. In April, at an anti-tax “tea party” held in Austin, Governor Rick Perry of Texas had his speech interrupted by cries of “secede.” The Governor did not sound inclined to disagree. “Texas is a unique place,” he later told reporters attending the rally. “When we came into the Union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that.”

Such sentiments resonate beyond the libertarian fringe. The Daily Kos, a liberal Web site, recently asked Perry’s fellow Texas Republicans, “Do you think Texas would be better off as an independent nation or as part of the United States of America? It was an even split: 48% for the U.S., 48% for a sovereign Texas, 4% not sure. Amongst all Texans, more than a third—35%—said an independent Texas would be better. The Texas Nationalist Movement claims that over 250,000 Texans have signed a form affirming the organization’s goal of a Texas nation.

Secessionist feelings also percolate in Alaska, where Todd Palin, husband of Governor Sarah Palin, was once a registered member of the Alaska Independence Party. But it is not as if the Right has a lock on this issue: Vermont, the seat of one of the most vibrant secessionist movements, is among the country’s most politically-liberal places. Vermonters are especially upset about imperial America’s foreign excursions in hazardous places like Iraq. The philosophical tie that binds these otherwise odd bedfellows is belief in the birthright of Americans to run their own affairs, free from centralized control. Their hallowed parchment is Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, on behalf of the original 13 British colonies, penned in 1776, 11 years before the framers of the Constitution gathered for their convention in Philadelphia. “The right of secession precedes the Constitution—the United States was born out of secession,” Daniel Miller, leader of the Texas Nationalist Movement, put it to me. Take that, King Obama.

Today’s devolutionists, of all stripes, can trace their pedigree to the “anti-federalists” who opposed the compact that came out of Philadelphia as a bad bargain that gave too much power to the center at the expense of the limbs. Some of America’s most vigorous and learned minds were in the anti-federalist camp; their ranks included Virginia’s Patrick Henry, of “give me liberty or give me death” renown. The sainted Jefferson, who was serving as a diplomat in Paris during the convention, is these days claimed by secessionists as a kindred anti-federal spirit, even if he did go on to serve two terms as president.

The anti-federalists lost their battle, but history, in certain respects, has redeemed their vision, for they anticipated how many Americans have come to feel about their nation’s seat of federal power. “This city, and the government of it, must indubitably take their tone from the character of the men, who from the nature of its situation and institution, must collect there,” the anti-federalist pamphleteer known only as the Federal Farmer wrote. “If we expect it will have any sincere attachments to simple and frugal republicanism, to that liberty and mild government, which is dear to the laborious part of a free people, we most assuredly deceive ourselves.”

In the mid-19th century, the anti-federalist impulse took a dark turn, attaching itself to the cause of the Confederacy, which was formed by the unilateral secession of 13 southern states over the bloody issue of slavery. Lincoln had no choice but to go to war to preserve the Union—and ever since, anti-federalism, in almost any guise, has had to defend itself from the charge of being anti-modern and indeed retrograde.

But nearly a century and a half has passed since Johnny Rebel whooped for the last time. Slavery is dead, and so too is the large-scale industrial economy that the Yankees embraced as their path to victory over the South and to global prosperity. The model lasted a long time, to be sure, surviving all the way through the New Deal and the first several decades of the post-World War II era, coming a cropper at the tail end of the 1960s, just as the economist John Kenneth Galbraith was holding out “The New Industrial State,” the master-planned economy, as a seemingly permanent condition of modern life.

Not quite. In a globalized economy transformed by technological innovations hatched by happily-unguided entrepreneurs, history seems to be driving one nail after another into the coffin of the big, which is why the Obama planners and their ilk, even if they now ride high, may be doomed to fail. No one anymore expects the best ideas to come from the biggest actors in the economy, so should anyone expect the best thinking to be done by the whales of the political world?

A notable prophet for a coming age of smallness was the diplomat and historian George Kennan, a steward of the American Century with an uncanny ability to see past the seemingly-frozen geopolitical arrangements of the day. Kennan always believed that Soviet power would “run its course,” as he predicted back in 1951, just as the Cold War was getting under way, and again shortly after the Soviet Union collapsed, he suggested that a similar fate might await the United States. America has become a “monster country,” afflicted by a swollen bureaucracy and “the hubris of inordinate size,” he wrote in his 1993 book, “Around the Cragged Hill: A Personal and Political Philosophy.” Things might work better, he suggested, if the nation was “decentralized into something like a dozen constituent republics, absorbing not only the powers of the existing states but a considerable part of those of the present federal establishment.”
Kennan’s genius was to foresee that matters might take on an organic, a bottom-up, life of their own, especially in a society as dynamic and as creative as America. His spirit, the spirit of an anti-federalist modernist, can be glimpsed in an intriguing “mega-region” initiative encompassing greater San Diego County, next-door Imperial County and, to the immediate south of the U.S. border, Northern Baja, Mexico. Elected officials representing all three participating areas recently unveiled “Cali Baja, a Bi-National Mega-Region,” as the “international marketing brand” for the project.

The idea is to create a global economic powerhouse by combining San Diego’s proven abilities in scientific research and development with Imperial County’s abundance of inexpensive land and availability of water rights and Northern Baja’s manufacturing base, low labor costs and ability to supply the San Diego area with electricity during peak-use terms. Bilingualism, too, is a key—with the aim for all children on both sides of the border to be fluent in both English and Spanish. The project director is Christina Luhn, a Kansas native, historian and former staffer on the National Security Council in Ronald Reagan’s White House in the mid-1980s. Contemporary America as a unit of governance may be too big, even the perpetually-troubled state of California may be too big, she told me, by way of saying that the political and economic future may belong to the megaregions of the planet. Her conviction is that large systems tend not to endure—“they break apart, there’s chaos, and at some point, new things form,” she said.

The notion that small is better and even inevitable no doubt has some flavor of romance—even amounting to a kind of modern secular faith, girded by a raft of multi-disciplinary literature that may or may not be relevant. Luhn takes her philosophical cue not only from Kennan but also from the science writer and physicist M. Mitchell Waldrop, author of “Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos.”

From Texas to Hawaii, these groups are fighting to secede
American secessionist groups today range from small startups with a few laptop computers to organized movements with meetings of delegates from several states.

The Middlebury Institute, a group that studies and supports the general cause of separatism and secessionism in the U.S., has held three Secession Congresses since its founding in 2004.

At the most recent gathering, held in New Hampshire last November, one discussion focused on creating a new federation potentially to be called “Novacadia,” consisting of present-day New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. An article highlighted on the group’s Web site describes Denmark as a role-model for the potential country. In the months following the convention, the idea “did not actually evolve into very much,” says Kirkpatrick Sale, the institute’s director.

Below the Mason-Dixon Line, groups like the League of the South and Southern National Congress hold meetings of delegates. They discuss secession as a way of accomplishing goals like protecting the right to bear arms and tighter immigration policies. The Texas Nationalist Movement claims that over 250,000 Texans have signed a form affirming the organization’s goal of a Texas nation.

A religious group, Christian Exodus, formed in 2003 with the purpose of transforming what is today South Carolina into a sovereign, Christian-run state. According to a statement on its Web site, the group still supports the idea, but has learned that “the chains of our slavery and dependence on Godless government have more of a hold on us than can be broken by simply moving to another state.”

On the West Coast, elected officials representing greater San Diego County, Imperial County and Northern Baja, Mexico, have proposed creating a “mega-region” of the three areas called “Cali Baja, a Bi-National Mega-Region.”

Hawaii is home to numerous groups that work toward the goal of sovereignty, including Nation of Hawaii. The group argues that native Hawaiians were colonized and forced into statehood against their will and without fair process, and therefore have the right to decide how to govern themselves today. In Alaska, the Alaska Independence Party advocates for the state’s independence.

There is also a Web site for a group called North Star Republic, with a mission to establish a socialist republic in what today is Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan.

A group of American Indians led by activist Russell Means is working to establish the Republic of Lakotah, which would cover parts of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming and Nebraska. In 2007, the Republic presented the U.S. State Department with a notice of withdrawal.
Even for the hard-edged secessionist crowd, with their rapt attentiveness to America’s roots, popular texts in the future-trend genre mingle in their minds with the yellowed scrolls of the anti-federalists. “The cornerstone of my thought,” Daniel Miller of the Texas Nationalist Movement told me, is John Naisbitt’s 1995 best seller, “Global Paradox,” which celebrates the entrepreneurial ethos in positing that “the bigger the world economy, the more powerful its smallest players.”

More convincingly, the proposition that small trumps big is passing tests in real-life political and economic laboratories. For example, the U.S. ranked eighth in a survey of global innovation leadership released in March by the Boston Consulting Group and the National Association of Manufacturers—with the top rankings dominated by small countries led by the city-state republic of Singapore. The Thunderbird School of Global Management, based in Arizona, has called Singapore “the most future-oriented country in the world.” Historians can point to the spectacularly inventive city-states of Renaissance Italy as an example of the small truly making the beautiful.

How, though, to get from big to small? Secessionists like Texas’ Miller pledge a commitment to peaceful methods. History suggests skepticism on this score: Even the American republic was born in a violent revolution. These days, the Russian professor Igor Panarin, a former KGB analyst, has snagged publicity with his dystopian prediction of civil strife in a dismembered America whose jagged parts fall prey to foreign powers including Canada, Mexico and, in the case of Alaska, Russia, naturally.
Still, the precedent for any breakup of today’s America is not necessarily the one set by the musket-bearing colonists’ demanded departure from the British crown in the late 18th century or by the crisis-ridden dissolution of the U.S.S.R. at the end of the 20th century. Every empire, every too-big thing, fragments or shrinks according to its own unique character and to the age of history to which it belongs.

The most hopeful prospect for the USA, should the decentralization impulse prove irresistible, is for Americans to draw on their natural inventiveness and democratic tradition by patenting a formula for getting the job done in a gradual and cooperative way. In so doing, geopolitical history, and perhaps even a path for others, might be made, for the problem of bigness vexes political leviathans everywhere. In India, with its 1.2 billion people, there is an active discussion of whether things might work better if the nation-state was chopped up into 10 or so large city-states with broad writs of autonomy from New Delhi. Devolution may likewise be the future for the European continent—think Catalonia—and for the British Isles. Scotland, a leading source of Enlightenment ideas for America’s founding fathers, now has its own flourishing independence movement. Even China, held together by an aging autocracy, may not be able to resist the drift towards the smaller.

So why not America as the global leader of a devolution? America’s return to its origins—to its type—could turn out to be an act of creative political destruction, with “we the people” the better for it.

politicspony: "My head has been jammed with this crap night after night. I go to work and it’s all I think about."

Don't worry. It'll get better. It's just part of an awakening process.

As to your comments about politicians who get too comfortable, it reminds me of something similar. Someone asked why the sessions had to be so short, and "shouldn't they be longer so they could pass these resolutions?"

To that person, I replied, "Have you ever seen the crap they push day after day while they are in session? I'd rather forego a 10th resolution than see them spend more time in session. THe best thing they can do for us is to spend the least time in session." And that's no joke! (No offense to our legislators who visit this site).

Bryce, Speaking of Congressional investigations into breaches of law, AND also keeping with this forum's titled topic: "Does anyone care about our rights" I MUST bring up the DAMNING evidence concerning the 9-11 "MURDER" of nearly 3000 Innocent American citizens! Does ANYONE care about THEIR rights to LIVE?! I just got in a 2hr documentary DVD entitled: "9/11:BLUEPRINT FOR TRUTH", produced by www.AE911Truth.org that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that explosives and fine-grain military thermite was used to "ASSIST" bringing down ALL three buildings! The witnesses, including many professionals in the fields of architects, engineers, explosive demolitions experts and fire fighters present a SOLID case indicating an INSIDE JOB! Due to our controlled media, mainstream America is totally ignorant of this information that points fingers directly at the government itself! For starters, ex-president George Bush MUST be confronted with this information and asked some very serious questions! That "attack" was awfully "handy" for him to have an excuse to initiate his "war on terror" and the so called "Patriot" Act! For the sake of all those poor souls that died such a horrible death through jumping,burning or being crushed, we MUST NOT let those resposible get away with such an atrocity just to promote their agenda! PLEASE obtain a copy of this video and help spread the word not only in memory of the 9-11 victims but for the sake of JUSTICE! The SAME people that are behind 9-11 are behind all of our woes today! It is up to WE THE PEOPLE to hold all tyrants responsible for their actions! Once we get the ball rolling on exposing these criminals then we can continue on linking them to their accessories and cleaning house of the evil vermin that plagues our beloved country! This effort must NEVER wane! IN GOD WE TRUST,all others we watch closely!

PHL - you made a number of attacks against other people's belief systems. I want to make clear that those kind of comments really aren't welcome here. please refrain from them in the future.

Maybe you could instead try to talk positive about what you have to offer - and stop putting down other users on this site because they have different religious beliefs than you. You'll have a better chance of influencing people if you do.

on top of it all, when you lump people into groups like you keep doing, you sound like a socialist.

thank you.

"If we do not have TIMELY Congressional Oversight, and Investigations into breaches of LAW, or Checks and Balances between the Executive, Legislature, and Judicial Branches, as described in the Constitution of the USA,
or have folks within the Department of Justice upholding their Constitutional Obligations INSTEAD of looking the other way,
have we lost our REPUBLIC and found another form of Government?"

-Just Wondering

Congressional Oversight- as in when there should have been someone saying ‘No, You can’t abuse prisoners’?

Investigations into criminal wrongdoing? Last I heard, there was a vote against even CONDUCTING A HEARING into whether or not Bush/Cheney was crook. They weren’t even compelled to ask questions...

Checks and balances- as in Congress asking Cheney to come answer some questions (and not even under oath) and him being allowed to say NO?????

Lastly and most disgraceful have been the betrayal of the Department of Justice. I saw John Yoo and David Addington come down for a little Q and A in the halls of congress and I can tell you that neither man gave a rat’s ass about the constitution OR the people. To them it was a game of how much they could get away with at the expense of liberty and the American ideals of our founding fathers.

So I’ll end with the quote from Benjamin Franklin you all know:

A lady asked Dr. Franklin:

“Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy?”

“A republic,” replied the Doctor

“...if you can keep it.”

If we want our Freedom back,
we are going to have to stop being citizens.

http://www.notaxesnow.org

gene karl

Okay, I'm driving down the highway one morning headed to work and I see a line of cars on the shoulder of the other side of the road. As I got closer I could see that there were about ten Mexican "gentlemen" standing in the grass relieving themselves ... in broad daylight, on a major travel artery in Oklahoma! The irony is that they were p*ssing on America. The reality is that their culture permits that kind of crap. Apply the same principle to the multitudes of third-world immigrants that we've brought into and empowered in this country over the last 40 years, and it ain't that difficult to figure out why we seem to lack the moral fiber necessary to defend our way of life.

PHL, I understand your skepticism, and I think I share it to an extent. But there are even deeper moral issues in play and we're going to figure it out eventually, or we're dead. But there's got to be a starting point. I mean, the race doesn't begin half way down the track.

I Think States sort of pick and choose when to take the moral high ground in terms of federal money. I remember Back in the 1980's when Idaho was one of the last hold out states in terms of federal road money in exchange for raising the drinking age... The roads were awful, I would say some of the worst in the Nation. Pressure was mounting in the press against Idaho to cave in.. and finally the public chimed in.. the drinking age was raised to 21, Idaho got it's roads fixed... another attempt at standing against nationalism shot down for the sake of money.

At bottom, the issue is, are the States passing resolution merely because they resent unfunded mandates and intrusions into offical business of the States qua States, or are they passing resolutions because they are moved out of the deeper moral issues that are impacting our culture and communties?

If all they care about are unfunded mandates and the ability to establish their own speed limits on the Highway, and the bigger issues of abortion, school prayer, Intelligent Design, Manger Scenes, and Ten Commandment monuments, etc., which DO impact our culture they do not care about, then we are truly in serious trouble as a people.

Unfunded mandates are NOT going to make or break us in terms of liberty and freedom, but the larger moral issues will.

I in no way meant to offend, at times my fingers move faster then my brain…

Yeah; it happens to the best of us. ;-)

I don't think anyone here means to unfairly attack you, Larry, but you can hardly expect them not to defend their deepest held convictions when they perceive them as being under attack.

Anyway, water under the bridge.

People,
I in no way meant to offend, at times my fingers move faster then my brain... I can come off a bit rank at times, but only because I lack tact and diplomacy.. ( okay, there I said it ) I certainly don't lack compassion or respect towards any of you..I will now retire to the kitchen, make a hot steamy cup of Sanka.. and hope that you all forgive my bull in a china shop approach. I would offer you all a cup as a token gesture for forgiveness, But I seem to be the only one who drinks it.

Michael wrote:

I’m all for moving on and focusing on what we can agree on - and that seems to be that the federal government is no longer a federal one, but instead a national one.

Well, it isn't supposed to be either one exclusive to the other. The original system involved both national and federal characteristics. But you're right, since federalism has almost altogether been abandoned it has become heavily imbalanced and national.

Michael wrote:

I’m all for moving on and focusing on what we can agree on - and that seems to be that the federal government is no longer a federal one, but instead a national one.

Well, it isn't supposed to be exclusively one or the other. It originally took on both national and federal characteristics. But you're right, the federal principle has been largely abandoned so it is almost exclusively, now, a 'national' government.

Patrick,
I do agree with you that without Christianity we would still be British subjects. And that Christianity was the saving grace of Rome..It was my intention to bring to light that Religion as a whole, and in the long run has not served the world very well. it is neither reliable nor consistent over time... That said I must reiterate my point that GOD is what salts the earth.. NOT religion.. this was my point. and that god and religion are not the same thing. God is interpreted differently by many and yet stays consistent throughout time in whatever form is chosen.. religion is dictated and structured by man to serve the institution.It is the agenda of every religion to spread and grow,and influence. With influence comes resistance, and that brings coercion and defiance. every religion seems to have the only path to salvation and heaven. But Christianity seems to take this a step further. The 64 dollar question is this:
If the only true way to salvation is through Jesus Christ, who's corner is he in?.. Because the Mormons claim a monopoly on him, as do the baptists, as do the Catholics, as do the Orthodox Christians, and so on.. Without being facetious, I ask how can one claim Christianity as supreme over any other religion when the factions within it are claiming exclusivity?

I wont deny that Christianity has cleaned up. It has done much good throughout the world. But I wouldn't rush to say they corner the market on good intentions, because as I stated in my previous post to you, their past is pretty sketchy, and all in the Name of Christ.. I must confess, I don't know the history of other religions, but I am sure they have their inconsistencies as well.

Michael,
A good, robust and respectful debate is healthy, it teaches that while we may disagree, we can be respectful of each others views..

Larry,

You're being a bit disingenuous in your reply to CC aren't you? I read your entire post above, and it's largely disparaging towards both the religion of Christ, and of Christians themselves. It also denies Christianity's positive influence on Western civilization in general, and America in particular. But the historical record does not support your claims.

Nonetheless, of course (genuine) Christians think that their religion is superior to other religions. If they didn't think Christianity is superior, then how could they possibly be Christian? This liberal notion of absolute equality between religions, of the various ideas about the relationship between God, man, and government; of legitimate as opposed to arbitrary government, is just that -- a liberal notion, which is to say self-destructive.

I am just wondering.

If I move from, let's say, Texas, to, let's say, New Hampshire,
because I need/want Medical Merijuana,
did I Secede from Texas?

If so,
will Texas try to Annex me,
like the USA Forcefully and Un-Constitutionally,
Annexed the Confederate States of America after the Confederate States of America Seceded?

Do I still keep my Inalienable Rights?

When do I lose my Inalienable Rights in the USA?

Are my Rights Written ANYWHERE?
If so, where?

Can the current President, or Congress, or State that I am in, take away any of my INALIENABLE Rights away?

If we do not have TIMELY Congressional Oversight, and Investigations into breaches of LAW, or Checks and Balances between the Executive, Legislature, and Judicial Branches, as described in the Constitution of the USA,
or have folks within the Department of Justice upholding their Constitutional Obligations INSTEAD of looking the other way,
have we lost our REPUBLIC and found another form of Government?

The closest I can find right now, with our current circumstances, is an Authoritarian Republic (CHECK IT OUT ON Weikapedia)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

I am really upset that we have lost all that we have had so far.

For those that want to do more investigations, are we into Fascism yet?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

When I say Fascism, I mean like the Benevolent Mussolini, not the Mussolini hung upside down.

Just Wondering and Thanks for all that reply!

I did not make that post to attack other people, but to make certain historical observations about where liberty acquires its energy and moral structure.

The New Age Movement has nothing to offer (cyrstal power? Give me break). Buddists pray to statues and have not produced freedom for its adherents. Chinese culture is totalitarian, forced abortions, etc.

Whatever energy Catholicism and the Orothdox churches once had is now spent and there are not making contriubtions toward liberty. Witness socialist Europe.

Hiduism is a cruel joke and has produced the most calloused treatment of the world's poorest of the poor. We know a young Brahman couple. They had 2000 people at their wedding. It lasted for 5 days, many are for 10. The British royalty would have been hard pressed to have put on such a feast for so many for so long. Yet, these richest of the rich have no problem with streets full of beggars and homeless children. Not exactly the kind of society that can produce liberty and justice for all!

We don't even need to mention Islam.

Go on down the line. Think of any religion or culture in the world. Everywhere you turn, it is only Christianty that has the energy and ethical basis that can bring and sustain liberty. Would anyone venture to deny that without it we would never have seceded from Britain?

True, men are imperfect and distort the Christian faith and sometimes give it an ugly, ignorant face. But that does not detract from its central truths or the fact that it only has raised civilization above slavery and oppression, barbarism and tyranny. We'd all be back watching Gladiator shows if Christianity had not conquered Rome!

That is why it is so important that the States act now to strengthen themselves against the federal government's war against the Christian faith by passing 10th Amendment Resolutions with teeth in them.

Pax!

Larry,

Although by your condescending tone I should like very much drop this whole subject, I am a glutton for punishment I suppose and propose this:

Two wrongs don't make a right. Obviously this will lead us in circles. Patrick can talk about his religion and you can talk about your lack there of and we'll still end up looking up as the corn has grown sky high around us and we wonder how we got to be living in Nazi Germany. Let's agree on 80% of issues and move on. Agreed?

CC,
I am in no way asking people to shut up nor was I demonizing... I was pointing out Patrick's assumption that Christianity was superior over other religions, in this case, Hindu and buddhism , catholics and orthodox churches. stating my belief that religion as a whole is man made and not from god, perhaps reading the entire post eluded you, sometimes we pick through posts in an effort to disagree and we miss what was actually being said. But thank you for reading it anyway.

Larry, I think your intentions are mostly well but in your criticism of Christianity it may do you good to speak FOR your religion rather than demonizing someone elses religion. This kind of talk is really unproductive and not conducive to the founding father's intentions of freedom of religion and freedom of speech. I welcome anyone to speak for their religion and how it will help save this country but please refrain from tearing down those whom you disagree with. Christian or not you are on his side, you want to preserve your God given rights as much as he does. Religion is from God, you just aren't in touch with that and that is okay but please don't force us to shut up because you don't want to hear it. That my friend goes against the very principles of liberty and the Constitution. Thanks!

WHAT DO WE WANT? An accountable and responsive government at all levels.
HOW DO WE DO THIS? We vote ALL of them OUT OF OFFICE first.

That is the hard part "voting them out", but remember, the good ones will appreciate the "vacation" having served honorably and the skunks will have to learn a trade.

Next election, people, OUT WITH ALL OF THEM!!!!!
Qualifications of replacements are discussed in the posts above.

We still have this power, lets use it or we will soon loose it.

Patrick,
I have to respectfully disagree with your opinion on Christianity.

Christianity is simply a religion, and religion is man made, Just like Government.. To hold Christianity above all other religions is ignoring it's history. One only has to look at the Crusades, the inquisitions, and even closer to home, the Salem witch hunts ( I could go on but I'll stop with these three) to see the Christian " Impact" at work. I find Christians sort of ho hum, and dismissive when ugly little inconviences are brought up such as the Mormons and their Mountain Meadows massacre,and Hitlers pope Pius XII, or even the Bible, a book rewritten hundreds if not thousands of times, yet it never dawns on Christians that maybe the story has morphed into something completely different then the original version.. after all, we are only human, humans wrote it, and human nature is prone to fault... Every religion has it's dark past, so I am not just picking on Christians. We need to focus on the problems of our nation, and we need to do it without trotting out our personal religions convictions.

It is enough to claim "one nation under god"
and allow each individual to define god in their own way. We don't and shouldn't be in the business of prostilizing our religious convictions has a means to fixing whats wrong with our Nation.

I have studied Buddhism and find this statement to be flatly false:

"Buddhism is another system of idol worship and has kept the Chinese in slavery to a Communist dictatorship for generations."

Regardless of the local religion, central planning is the one consistent tool of oppression and what our nation was founded to provide an alternative to.

Secession is not necessary, provided that the powers given to the people, in part through the 10th Amendment, are once again used by the people of America.

It's not a broken constitution, we just need to follow it for a change.

I believe in the final analysis liberty is not an accident of nature or history. It is the product of a people’s culture and temperament and has as its ultimate source their religion and morality. I do not think the Hindu religion with its worship of idols and caste system can ever produce a dynamic, scientifically investigative, politically free and just society. It is only by Western (Christian) influences that the Hindu Brahman caste system of class oppression is being mollified and broken down. I do not think Islam can produce a free, self governing people. Their religion is inherently violent and totalitarian; conform or die. Buddhism is another system of idol worship and has kept the Chinese in slavery to a Communist dictatorship for generations. Catholic and the Orthodox churches are ossified relics left over from the middle ages that consist in little more than bear ritualism, which cannot provide an ethical structure or dynamic world view capable of sustaining freedom.

The list goes on. Only Christianity has the dynamics capable of impacting culture in a continuously positive way, lifting man, lifting morals, teaching us to love our neighbor, to do unto others as we would have them do unto us; it teaches us not to fear the tyrant but to speak up for the right regardless of the cost; to live by and die for a code that transcends earthly existence.

This said, some of the talk or rhetoric about secession is to awaken the moral alacrity and righteous indignation in men that causes them to leave aside lesser cares and stand upon principle and the right not to have Christianity erased from the landscape by usurping federal judges. Sometimes I fear that the quality of men’s faith today has become so weak and insubstantial that what matters most is our retirement plans and creature comforts. How else can you explain the whole State of Alabama caving in to the order of Myron Thompson that the Ten Commandments monument be removed from the State Supreme Court building? How else to explain the total cave-in except that people just don’t care enough about things eternal, and have lowered their vision to the “flesh pots of Egypt”? That certainly was not true 150 years ago. An order like that would have produced an immediate, violent flare up of anger and outrage. I suspect that any judge purporting to make such an order 150 years ago would have been lucky to get out of town alive. That is no exaggeration.

Or, maybe people do care, but have been conditioned by the endless, incremental assault spanning most of our lifetimes to think they must accept this, as if America was predestinated to become a secularized State; as if there is nothing that can or should be done; that the whole of our Christian faith is summed up in “moral capitulation and fatalism”. If we talk about secession please understand that we are reaching out beyond the norm to some “ultimate” out there somewhere that breaks the paradigm of creeping secularism and socialism; reaching beyond the norm of our time when people don’t care enough to do anything, holding out a vision that says “we can, we may, we must” but only if we will.

I love the language of this bill. It get right to the point...

Terry,
for what it's worth,
My State, Washington State is a solid Blue state from the Governor down to the two Senators. It doesn't reflect my views on a whole either, however it does uphold the second amendment, and carry conceal is "shall issue". That said, I don't think there is a State that has latched as firmly to the Federal nipple as Washington has. wouldn't it be a breath of fresh air to see a State declare a State flag day?..perhaps even pass state holidays?
During the Civil war men and boys identified themselves with the state they came from. Identifying ourselves as Americans has a Nationalist tone to it. Granted we are all " proud Americans" but to be a proud Okee, or a proud Washingtonian would put the emphasis on our individualism. I think the closest I have seen to this is Texas. Texans seem to understand this a little better then the rest of us.

Larry, interesting comments.

If our state flag in Oklahoma in any way represented the ideas this nation was founded on, then I'd hoist it to the top of the pole and fly it day and night. As it is, though, it's just a celebration of Native American culture and tradition, which is ok I guess, but doesn't reflect any of my deep and abiding values, nor those of the majority population here. However, I might have a copy of our Tenth Amendment Resolution transfered onto a 4'X6' piece of cloth and hoist it up my flag pole. :)

But I like your statement "secession begins as a state of mind." How true.

Talking Violence will definitely will snuff out any support that is brewing, and will give the liberal media excuses to draw and quarter supporters for being extremists.

While secession is something that I think is far from actually happening, at least in my life time, I think in the near future, citizens will be moving to states that are legislating towards being constitutionally friendly. States that actively resist federal government's intrusion, will see an influx of growth as more and more people migrate to states with politicians that "get it" like Montana and Texas and others. Secession I think Starts as a frame of mind.

Oppression has a funny way of masking it's self, when hope and alternatives present themselves, Americans seem to recognize it ( oppression ) quickly. the 2nd Amendment movement looks like a glimmer of hope, I think like minded individuals will embrace states that have taken the lead in this.

It also will make politicians who champion these types of rights wildly popular, Politicians that run on a platform of restoring personal rights, gun rights, property rights, liberty and freedom from federal intrusion, while also Supporting alternatives to federal money. To support an increase of State taxes, so that Federal money and influence can be rejected, thus solidifying the sovereignty and individuality of the State ...of coarse this is my own little pipe dream.

One more note, I find it interesting that citizens fly our Nations flag, yet you never see anyone fly their State flag.

I appreciate Jeff Matthew's comment above. Nobody should ever act outside of the law, and I do not get the impression anyone here is remotely suggesting otherwise.

I do beleive, however, that what we are hearing is the voice of people that are fed up with the government's lawlessness and usurpations; the voice of people who want their State governments to stop playing the coward and start asserting themselves. Is America going to become like France and England, where Christianity is disappearing? Every order of a federal court that prevents us from teaching our children sceintific creationism, or having prayer at commencement ceremonies, or that directs a cross be removed here, or the Ten Commandments there, takes us one step closer to completely secularized society, cut off from the very roots that made it free. And, quite apart from the political ramifications, there are souls in the balance. How many Frenchman and Englishman are saved? How many darken the door of church, or humbly kneel in prayer? Look at the billions of souls in godless China and idolatrous India. In India, their minds are so darkened that they drink cow's urine as a health tonic out of superstitious worship of cows. Google it and see for your self. Can a people whose minds are darkened like that ever hope to be free? Their religious notions produce one of the most brutal caste systems in the world. Ideas have consequences! And the idea of the gospel is the value of the individual in heaven's eye. One soul is worth more than all earth's treasure. Jesus died to save each soul that will come to him. This make the individual heaven's unit of measure, not the State. The State serves individuals, not individuals the State. That is the idea that gave birth to our freedoms. Where will we be when Christianity is expelled?

So, when we talk about what the federal government is doing when it sets itself up as the enemy of Christianity, we are really talking about what matters very most. And because it matters very most it ought to be the watershed of where we draw the line and where we say "thus far and no further." Let the government involve itself in ten million stupid ideas about socialized health care, or what not, but let it NOT lay profane hands upon the sacred place of Christianity in our nation's schools, government halls, public places and our military's dead.

Michael Boldin wrote:

But, on the other hand, impatience and pushing for things before other steps have been taken - is just as foolish.

Agreed. Afterall, "prudence indeed will dictate..." And, of course, anything taken to the extreme is bad.

You and I are at different places with regard to how far out each of us projects an actual secession likely is. But that's ok. We're all just trying to figure things out. And in principle I think we're largely in agreement, particularly on the steps that should be taken prior to an actual secession.

As far as the general discussion goes, well, you know, these open discussion forums like this tend to bring out the best and the worst in people. I think it just comes along with the territory. Which in some ways is unfortunate, in others not.

A personal favorite Federalist of mine is Federalist no. 1 from whence I extract the following observations posted below, without further comment.

On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.

Maybe those comments are in other threads. I'm not going to go back and re-read them all.

I don't think they are overt by any means, but some comments can be taken by implication that some people might be at their wits end and "ready to go."

Anyway, I'll just drop it. I don't want to get into a fray over this. I'm just trying to give some thoughtful advice just in case. If I mistook anything, then, I guess, "no harm, no foul."

I don't remember reading any posts about violence, what in the world are you talking about Jeff???

Maybe my point wasn't. You know all those people who willfully refuse to pay taxes? Well, they're in jail. And guess what? Nobody really cares, and they'll just sit there.

I am suggesting not to get too crazy with this idea of guns, bloodshed, rebellions, etc.

"Give me liberty or give me death" was a catchy saying that meant something only because it was coined at the right time. I don't think the time is right to incite violence or suggest you are ready to be a part of it.

I am NOT of the "older" generation and if you think you're going to protect the constitution yourself, you are badly mistaken.

Why do I wonder whether I might see some of you in the news one of these days?

Just keep in mind that the Waco bunch pretty much died alone, if you know what I mean. Not much was proved by that tragedy.

Patrick, Sadly the ONLY ones that share you heartfelt feelings concerning our beloved country are those of us whose early years were lived during America's BEST days! The youth of today cannot relate to us as they have their eyes only to their future as described to them by their socialist teachers and college professors! I was born in 1942 and remember vividly the high spirit the American people displayed as I was growing up. Back then people were a lot closer to each other and would constantly be visiting or going out with each other. I remember WHOLESOME times with friends, relatives and neighbors who were always concerned about each other and never visited empty handed! Families used to spend lots of time together, daughters in the kitchen watching Mom cook and sons watching Dad stoke the coal stove! The common evening scene was kids laying on the living room carpet playing checkers while Mom was siting in her chair sewing and Dad reading a REAL newspaper while we all listened to the big Zenith radio! Often we would hear a knock on the door and a shout of SURPRIZE as visitors bearing a white cardboard box wraped with cotton string entered our home! We would all sit around the dining room table and enjoy GREAT A&P Eight O'Clock coffee and the delicious pasteries in that white box! The older folks told stories that were passed on to them by their elders while we kids listened and learned with open ears and wide eyes! "THEN" one day it happened....Television! I remember the very first TV that I saw was at my Uncle's home in Mamaroneck, NY. It was about a 7" screen with a HUGE magnifying glass in front of it! There was not much conversation that evening as everyone's attention was "now" on the TV and NOT each other! If you did try to talk to someone they would answer you without taking their eyes off that TV set...as if to hint; please shut up! Once TV got a foothold into American homes a new era began and a VERY OLD AMERICAN TRADITION DIED! Sadly, it's been a downhill ride ever since this new TV invention gradually metamorphosed from a wholsome entertainment and learning tool into a mind-degenerating machine from Hell! (With all Satan's Harpies cruising through the channels to destroy the minds of our youth!) When I went to school we studied American & World history and had a separate class called Civics! We were taught about Karl Marx & Frederick Engles so that we could be aware of the ploys of Communism! The youth today and most of their parants were shortchanged as these elements were removed from the school curriculums through out America in the Socialist's planned agenda of dumbing down our youth. As the minds of our younger generations have become ripe as plums the Socialists are now harvesting their crop from the seeds that they have sown! SOOOOO, that's where we are today, the MAJORITY of people fooled and the KING of socialists laughing all the way to the White House on their ignorant votes! Yes, Patrick, my eyes well up also as I see what's happening today, but worse of all is that when I try to talk to young people all I get back is a blank stare! If this country is going to be saved and our beloved U.S. Constitution restored WE, the older generation, will have to actively do it ourselves with God's devine help and guidance! One thing for sure is that WE MUST NEVER GIVE UP THE FIGHT FOR OUR GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS, UNTO DEATH!!!

One4Liberty,

You are correct in your acknowledgment that rights come from God. Unfortunately, most of the "conservative Christians" in this nation have chosen the Republican party over the principles of freedom. They have the most to answer for on judgment day.

"Patrick--",

Others share in your emotions and feelings. For too long, Americans have chosen to worship idols and have forsaken the laws that set them free. We are paying a price. Now is the time to renew, revive and reclaim!

I tell you that my eyes swell with tears when I see what is happening to this once good, kind, righteous, godfearing nation. A place where you didn't need locks on your doors, where divorce was unacceptible, where abortion was not even known, and homosexuality was an unspeakable crime. My eyes swell with tears thinking of the ruined lives and lost souls of millions of children who have fallen victim to the liberal agenda. When I was born, it was still a shame to have an illegitimate child. I was given up for adoption because my mother fell into sin and would have been disowned for the disgrace her selfishness and folly brought on thier and her own good name. Today, women just murder children in their wombs. Those that have them, have children by three different fathers. What kind of life will those children grow up to have? What kind of nation will we have when the 39.4% of children now growing up are adults? My God! When will we say enough? "Is life so sweet and peace so dear that it must be at the price of slavery?" I have come to beleive that we are better off being cut down like dogs in the street fighting for liberty, then to allow the madness to go on. But, yes. We must work through the law, and yes, the steps being taken are essential and important. But my blood runs red when I think of the crimes and endless, relentless assualt against all that we have ever called good and what it will mean for those who come tomorrow! What a sorry, sorry legacy we are leaving behind. Truly, it is a disgrace that we did not have conviction enough to demand a stop sooner. God forgive us!

Anticrime,

If we are going to really take this to the point of impact, the real date is 1861, but I understand that the creation of the Federal Reserve had a serious implication and impact on the power of we the people.

And I, like you, commended "Patrick--" for his position. As I have said throughout my blogs, we all agree that the power of the federal government is unauthorized under the constitution, and therefore, tyrannical.

The question from this point out is: what measures will we take to take the power back.