CDZ National Pride

[I amso IR]

A Dose of National Pride Would Be Good For America.




7/19/2015



America is suffering due to diversity. Diversity divides and creates turmoil. We are “The United States of America”. We are united and not diverse, as a nation, as some wish.


America desperately needs a dose National Pride. Pride unites and increases the level of harmony. Pride creates a sense of being whole, complete and one, universal pride.


Persons born here must be taught that having been born American they have been blessed. They also have inherited the burden of keeping America free from corrupt government and division. All citizens need to be involved.


More importantly, immigrants, regardless of national origin, need to take seriously the fact that they live here, work here and are welcome here. They should fully support this nation, it's people and seek legal citizenship. They sought a new home and have one. Now support it.


Belief that America is free has nothing to do with what will be given. America is not free, in that sense. America takes work, dedication, and giving. In many parts of the world, the population serves the leaders. In America we have a Constitution which states the government serves the people. It is a public responsibility to insure that the government complies. Failure to do so leads to anarchy and the loss of individual freedom. Much as we have today.


Yes, it is time for a sense of National pride in America. This Nation has struggled since it's inception. It continues that struggle today and will tomorrow. America has vested it's people, wealth, material goods, crops, medical care and much more, attempting to help all on this planet. It is the time, now, for America to turn it's aid inward. Americans, in the homeland must require that government care for America. We have done more than any other country, for this planet. Now it is America's turn, not Hillary Clinton's. She said, “It Takes a Village”. Our National Village will do nicely. May God bless America and all of her people.


I am so IR



345

 

[Josf]

Helping people share the idea of voluntary mutual defense through rule of law is possible theoretically. One competitive way to help people share this pride in earning liberty is to realize what is the meaning behind federation; as opposed to the meaning behind nationalism.

Federation, which is what America started out as, is a voluntary association of free people in places that are based upon res-publica, or the public thing, which is to say that we the people are the government ourselves as individuals voluntarily associated for our mutual defense against all enemies foreign and domestic.

So there are three things that may help.

1. Rule of law, also known as common law, also known as due process, also found in the form known as trial by jury.

2. Republicanism, also known as the public thing, also known as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, which is precisely NOT government of the criminals, by the criminals, and for the criminals.

3. Nationalism

What do you think Nationalism is in demonstrable fact?

What is, for example, a way to measure "National Interest?"

How about this:
U.S. National Debt Clock Real Time

 

[jwoodie]

IRATE? America needs a reason to feel proud of its accomplishments instead of listening to the negative jibber jabber we hear from the corrupt Left. Will it happen? We'll see in 17 months.

 

[I amso IR]

Helping people share the idea of voluntary mutual defense through rule of law is possible theoretically. One competitive way to help people share this pride in earning liberty is to realize what is the meaning behind federation; as opposed to the meaning behind nationalism.

Federation, which is what America started out as, is a voluntary association of free people in places that are based upon res-publica, or the public thing, which is to say that we the people are the government ourselves as individuals voluntarily associated for our mutual defense against all enemies foreign and domestic.

So there are three things that may help.

1. Rule of law, also known as common law, also known as due process, also found in the form known as trial by jury.

2. Republicanism, also known as the public thing, also known as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, which is precisely NOT government of the criminals, by the criminals, and for the criminals.

3. Nationalism

What do you think Nationalism is in demonstrable fact?

What is, for example, a way to measure "National Interest?"

How about this:
U.S. National Debt Clock Real Time

Ref: 3. above. Certainly support of one's nation, rule of law, policies in general or failure to do so through legitimate protest would qualify.
Another would be through the display of the National Colors on appropriate occasions would be another. Another demonstrated fact is the public acceptance of taxation as a necessary evil and willing doing so.

The U.S. National Debt Clock Real Time, is nifty and could be used for that purpose, I suppose. Kind of a moot point since we, the people, dictate our spending habit's, at least somewhat. Funny you should mention spending, as I read on line a couple weeks ago, please do not ask where, that Ms Hillary Clinton is asking her supporters for a one billion dollar election fund. That also would account as a way to measure "National Interest". Totally off of your question, do you suppose
Ms Clinton is worth one billion smackers?

 

[I amso IR]

IRATE? America needs a reason to feel proud of its accomplishments instead of listening to the negative jibber jabber we hear from the corrupt Left. Will it happen? We'll see in 17 months.

Yes we will woodie, yes we will. It will certainly be a milestone in American history, which ever way it goes!

 

[ABikerSailor]

If people actually learned about how this country is being run instead of listening to political rhetoric, they would be ashamed as to how badly we've been duped by big money.

Then maybe they'd get upset and actually start paying attention to the issues.

After that, and only after that, MAYBE then we could show some actual national pride rather than bumper sticker rhetoric.

 

[I amso IR]

If people actually learned about how this country is being run instead of listening to political rhetoric, they would be ashamed as to how badly we've been duped by big money.

Then maybe they'd get upset and actually start paying attention to the issues.

After that, and only after that, MAYBE then we could show some actual national pride rather than bumper sticker rhetoric.

Biker, what is the solution to the problems you mention? How should they learn, where should they go to learn, how did you learn? Exactly what has "big money" done and how has "big money" duped the public? I am in no way defending those who have the most, of anything as I believe they should so much more. When folks write about Warren Buffet, or Mr./Ms Microsoft giving 5 million here or 10 million dollars there, I chuckle.That money simply softens their tax burden. They are going to pay, one way or the other. All the while Joe and Janet Public are trying to put together the $500.00 they owe in taxes and the rest are counting on unearned income to bail them out and reward them.
However that is not what I am professing. I am saying that due to the overplayed hand of diversity, we are losing respect for the nation we are in theory supportive of. Ethnic's are one thing and are important for the family structure. In my opinion however, an over riding factor is that being English, French, Italian, or Iranian has nothing to do with one's chosen home, in particular The United States of America. And if you are not proud of the fact that you are American, why is that person here? Seems like the thing to do is not an answer.
So again, what do you propose to do about your own complaint? Pride in country is certainly a step in the right direction! Perhaps if enough little guys show pride some of the fat cats would also. Pride might make it profitable to them as opposed to telling them are are opportunist dogs.
It is time, we as a people, tell the world, we are now taking care of ourselves, like it or not! Live with it!

 

[Josf]

"Totally off of your question, do you suppose
Ms Clinton is worth one billion smackers?"

The owners of the "private" Federal Reserve can double the ("legal tender") money supply at will, I'm sure they can write one billion on a piece a paper and hand it over to the criminal named Ms Clinton. I'd prefer a Grand Jury of the people, by the people, and for the people, volunteering to investigate Ms Clinton's crimes, writing up a presentment, and offering her what everyone, by law, is afforded; which is trial by jury according to the common law in all cases of these types of capital crimes.

A sense of Nationalism for wives with husbands dealing with PTSD after a few tours in the few wars run by the criminals who took over government, at the federal level, is a different sense than the meaning of Nationalism when wearing the shoes of those criminals behind those false flags.

Nationalism: Sacrificing all for the good of all who live in a shared voluntary mutual defense idea.

Nationalism: A dog and pony show used to inspire people to obey any criminal order without question.

Those who witnessed National Interests worked out in Waco Texas were inspired by those events to go in one of at least two directions of Nationalism.

The recent confrontations between Oath Keepers and Federal Officers at Bundy Ranch Nevada and Ferguson Missouri exemplify the two directions.

1. Obey moral conscience (a natural law) and help defend the innocent victims from the guilty criminals: foreign and domestic.

2. Obey the order to shoot to kill (murder) if needed to acquire control over specific people and specific property, and do so without question.

 

[I amso IR]

"Totally off of your question, do you suppose
Ms Clinton is worth one billion smackers?"

The owners of the "private" Federal Reserve can double the ("legal tender") money supply at will, I'm sure they can write one billion on a piece a paper and hand it over to the criminal named Ms Clinton. I'd prefer a Grand Jury of the people, by the people, and for the people, volunteering to investigate Ms Clinton's crimes, writing up a presentment, and offering her what everyone, by law, is afforded; which is trial by jury according to the common law in all cases of these types of capital crimes.

A sense of Nationalism for wives with husbands dealing with PTSD after a few tours in the few wars run by the criminals who took over government, at the federal level, is a different sense than the meaning of Nationalism when wearing the shoes of those criminals behind those false flags.

Nationalism: Sacrificing all for the good of all who live in a shared voluntary mutual defense idea.

Nationalism: A dog and pony show used to inspire people to obey any criminal order without question.

Those who witnessed National Interests worked out in Waco Texas were inspired by those events to go in one of at least two directions of Nationalism.

The recent confrontations between Oath Keepers and Federal Officers at Bundy Ranch Nevada and Ferguson Missouri exemplify the two directions.

1. Obey moral conscience (a natural law) and help defend the innocent victims from the guilty criminals: foreign and domestic.

2. Obey the order to shoot to kill (murder) if needed to acquire control over specific people and specific property, and do so without question.

I amso IR (Replies) 7/22/15 12:17pn

I understand the feeling of being powerless. The question with regards to Ms. Clinton was not complicated. The question desired a simple yes or no response.

The preference you noted is understood and accepted. Trial by jury of one's peers is the accepted norm within the common community which is not the same as the Federal level. That the Federation you espouse has moved on to Federal system is a line of normal progression as the Republic has grown as large and complicated as it has. This also may be accepted as for the common good.

Wives and PTSD are something I know, something from personal experience. Very few, at the Federal level, John McCain and possibly two or three others excepted, is something thought of as a cost of business within the world arena. Has always been that way and always will be. The statement, "War, what is it good for, absolutely nothing" rings as hollow as "We must help our injured servicemen and women".

The mistake of comparing National Pride to Governmental Nationalism is understandable, but simply a mistake. It is apples and oranges. A sense of loving pride in one's nation is necessary for survival of one's home. It provides the ingredient needed to assure survival of that nation.

Dogs and pony's are of no merit other than from an entertainment point of view, if that is your goal.

Waco was the dog and pony show you have alluded to. A simple solution to most if not all confrontations of any nature involving civil authority, is to comply with the Officials requests. Deadly force directed at said officials is not a sensibile thing to do under any circumstance. Threats to one's personal self come as well as go, that is to say, they are equal in any direction.

Direction of force is a consequence of intended action. Remove intention and action is a mute point. The court of law is intended to rectify such areas of dispute. However, one is not assured of feeding at the public trough, continually, in any event. At some point one is expected to help one's self.

1. Above; Agreed

2. Above; Compliance with legal authority and a hearing in front of an established count by the people, nullify's that point.

 

[Josf]

"The question with regards to Ms. Clinton was not complicated. The question desired a simple yes or no response."

Dictators think alike? In the first place the question is extremely complicated when the question involves transfers of purchasing power that you called "ssmackers," and because that transfer of that form of purchasing power constitutes inculpatory evidence during the crime of treason, or merely "bribery," the yes or no answer was demonstrably insufficient in this case since so much is at stake during these types of crimes perpetrated by these types of criminals.

You can claim all day that your questions "desired" a simple yes or no response, and that works fine for those who agree with this type of routine criminal act perpetrated routinely by these criminals. For me, and people who agree with me, this type of transfer of "smackers," happening routinely must be opposed as a duty of free people, not covered-up, not used for entertainment, not a source of polarization into two sides that are then inspired to hate each other with mutual disrespect.

"Trial by jury of one's peers is the accepted norm within the common community which is not the same as the Federal level."

Which federal level? The idea of federation was amply demonstrated as a voluntary association in the words of the traitor John Adams, and in the actions of the people called patriots during the war that became known as the Revolutionary War. That federation ended in 1789. If you are speaking about the Nation State as it exists currently, the Nation State started in 1789, then you are speaking about a Dictatorship, also known as tyranny, which is easily measureable as such when the association is involuntary. The involuntary nature of the Nation State was demonstrated well enough during the war that became known as the Civil War; which was predictable, as an inevitability, warned about by those in opposition to the change from a federation to a Nation State: before it happened.

"That the Federation you espouse has moved on to Federal system is a line of normal progression as the Republic has grown as large and complicated as it has."

Your version of meanings of words is notable. Where do you, as an individual, arrive at your version of the meanings of these words?

A federation was clearly known as a voluntary association, in at least the words of John Adams here:

"On the other side, it was argued by J. Adams,Lee, Wythe, and others, that no gentleman had argued against the policy of the right o separation from Britain, nor had supposed it possible we should ever renew our connection; that they had only opposed its being now declared:
That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; an that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:"

As to the meaning of Republic there are words, such as words written by Thomas Paine, to work with here:

Quote:__________________________________________
Though the ancient governments present to us a miserable picture of the condition of man, there is one which above all others exempts itself from the general description. I mean the democracy of the Athenians. We see more to admire, and less to condemn, in that great, extraordinary people, than in any thing which history affords.

Mr. Burke is so little acquainted with constituent principles of government, that he confounds democracy and representation together. Representation was a thing unknown in the ancient democracies. In those the mass of the people met and enacted laws (grammatically speaking) in the first person. [note: look up the word sortition for a possible greater understanding of this time period]

Simple democracy was no other than the common hall of the ancients. It signifies the form, as well as the public principle of the government. As these democracies increased in population, and the territory extended, the simple democratical form became unwieldy and impracticable; and as the system of representation was not known, the consequence was, they either degenerated convulsively into monarchies, or became absorbed into such as then existed.

Had the system of representation been then understood, as it now is, there is no reason to believe that those forms of government, now called monarchical and aristocratical, would ever have taken place. It was the want of some method to consolidate the parts of society, after it became too populous, and too extensive for the simple democratical form, and also the lax and solitary condition of shepherds and herdsmen in other parts of the world, that afforded opportunities to those unnatural modes of government to begin.

As it is necessary to clear away the rubbish of errors, into which the subject of government has been thrown, I shall proceed to remark on some others.

It has always been the political craft of courtiers and court-governments, to abuse something which they called republicanism; but what republicanism was, or is, they never attempt to explain. Let us examine a little into this case.

The only forms of government are, the democratical, the aristocratical, the monarchical, and what is now called the representative.

What is called a republic, is not any particular form of government. It is wholly characteristical of the purport, matter, or object for which government ought to be instituted, and on which it is to be employed, res-publica, the public affairs, or the public good; or, literally translated, the public thing.

It is a word of a good original, referring to what ought to be the character and business of government; and in this sense it is naturally opposed to the word monarchy, which has a base original signification. It means arbitrary power in an individual person; in the exercise of which, himself, and not the res-publica, is the object.

Every government that does not act on the principle of a republic, or in other words, that does not make the res-publica its whole and sole object, is not a good government. Republican government is no other than government established and conducted for the interest of the public, as well individually as collectively. It is not necessarily connected with any particular form, but it most naturally associates with the representative form, as being best calculated to secure the end for which a nation is at the expense of supporting it.

Various forms of government have affected to style themselves a republic. Poland calls itself a republic, which is an hereditary aristocracy, with what is called an elective monarchy. Holland calls itself a republic which is chiefly aristocratical, with an hereditary stadtholdership.

But the government of America, which is wholly on the system of representation, is the only real republic in character and practise, that now exists. Its government has no other object than the public business of the nation, and therefore it is properly a republic; and the Americans have taken care that this, and no other, shall always be the object of the government, by their rejecting everything hereditary, and establishing government on the system of representation only.

Those who have said that a republic is not a form of government calculated for countries of great extent, mistook, in the first place, the business of a government for a form of government; for the res-publica equally appertains to every extent of territory and population. And, in the second place, if they meant any thing with respect to form, it was the simple democratical form, such as was the mode of government in the ancient democracies, in which there was no representation. The case therefore, is not, that a republic cannot be extensive, but that it cannot be extensive on the simple democratical form; and the question naturally presents itself, What is the best form of government for conducting the RES-PUBLICA, or the PUBLIC BUSINESS of a nation, after it becomes too extensive and populous for the simple democratical form?

It cannot be monarchy, because monarchy is subject to an objection of the same amount to which the simple democratical form was subject.

It is possible that an individual may lay down a system of principles, on which government shall be constitutionally established to any extent of territory. This is no more than an operation of the mind, acting by its own powers. But the practise upon those principles, as applying to the various and numerous circumstances of a nation, its agriculture, manufacture, trade, commerce, etc., requires a knowledge of a different kind, and which can be had only from the various parts of society.

It is an assemblage of practical knowledge, which no one individual can possess; and therefore the monarchical form is as much limited, in useful practise, from the incompetency of knowledge, as was the democratical form, from the multiplying of population. The one degenerates, by extension, into confusion; the other, into ignorance and incapacity, of which all the great monarchies are an evidence. The monarchical form, therefore, could not be a substitute for the democratical, because it has equal inconveniences.

Much less could it when made hereditary. This is the most effectual of all forms to preclude knowledge. Neither could the high democratical mind have voluntarily yielded itself to be governed by children and idiots, and all the motley insignificance of character, which attends such a mere animal system, the disgrace and the reproach of reason and of man.

As to the aristocratical form, it has the same vices and defects with the monarchical, except that the chance of abilities is better from the proportion of numbers, but there is still no security for the right use and application of them.

Referring, then, to the original simple democracy, it affords the true data from which government on a large scale can begin. It is incapable of extension, not from its principle, but from the inconvenience of its form; and monarchy and aristocracy, from their incapacity. Retaining, then, democracy as the ground, and rejecting the corrupt systems of monarchy and aristocracy, the representative system naturally presents itself; remedying at once the defects of the simple democracy as to form, and the incapacity of the other two with respect to knowledge.

Simple democracy was society governing itself without the aid of secondary means. By ingrafting representation upon democracy, we arrive at a system of government capable of embracing and confederating all the various interests and every extent of territory and population; and that also with advantages as much superior to hereditary government, as the republic of letters is to hereditary literature.

It is on this system that the American government is founded. It is representation ingrafted upon democracy. It has fixed the form by a scale parallel in all cases to the extent of the principle. What Athens was in miniature, America will be in magnitude. The one was the wonder of the ancient world; the other is becoming the admiration and model of the present. It is the easiest of all the forms of government to be understood, and the most eligible in practise; and excludes at once the ignorance and insecurity of the hereditary mode, and the inconvenience of the simple democracy.

It is impossible to conceive a system of government capable of acting over such an extent of territory, and such a circle of interests, as is immediately produced by the operation of representation. France, great and popular as it is, is but a spot in the capaciousness of the system. It adapts itself to all possible cases. It is preferable to simple democracy even in small territories. Athens, by representation, would have outrivaled her own democracy.

That which is called government, or rather that which we ought to conceive government to be, is no more than some common center, in which all the parts of society unite. This cannot be accomplished by any method so conducive to the various interests of the community, as by the representative system.

It concentrates the knowledge necessary to the interests of the parts, and of the whole. It places government in a state of constant maturity. It is, as has been already observed, never young, never old. It is subject neither to nonage, nor dotage.
_____________________________________________________________

That may not be what is desired for those who desire sound bites or yes or no answers.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

A Dose of National Pride Would Be Good For America.




7/19/2015



America is suffering due to diversity. Diversity divides and creates turmoil. We are “The United States of America”. We are united and not diverse, as a nation, as some wish.


America desperately needs a dose National Pride. Pride unites and increases the level of harmony. Pride creates a sense of being whole, complete and one, universal pride.


Persons born here must be taught that having been born American they have been blessed. They also have inherited the burden of keeping America free from corrupt government and division. All citizens need to be involved.


More importantly, immigrants, regardless of national origin, need to take seriously the fact that they live here, work here and are welcome here. They should fully support this nation, it's people and seek legal citizenship. They sought a new home and have one. Now support it.


Belief that America is free has nothing to do with what will be given. America is not free, in that sense. America takes work, dedication, and giving. In many parts of the world, the population serves the leaders. In America we have a Constitution which states the government serves the people. It is a public responsibility to insure that the government complies. Failure to do so leads to anarchy and the loss of individual freedom. Much as we have today.


Yes, it is time for a sense of National pride in America. This Nation has struggled since it's inception. It continues that struggle today and will tomorrow. America has vested it's people, wealth, material goods, crops, medical care and much more, attempting to help all on this planet. It is the time, now, for America to turn it's aid inward. Americans, in the homeland must require that government care for America. We have done more than any other country, for this planet. Now it is America's turn, not Hillary Clinton's. She said, “It Takes a Village”. Our National Village will do nicely. May God bless America and all of her people.


I am so IR



345

National pride is the WORST thing in the history of humanity. Immediately sets you at odds with everyone else. "We're the best! Everyone else sucks!" Well, when you think you're all that and a bag of chips, you tend to marginalize everyone else. Makes it a lot easier to have a war if no one cares much about "them."

 

[Bonzi]

I go to many baseball games throughout the year, and, every they play/sing the National Anthem I cry.

I am so proud to be an American!

Last time they played it, I thought about how they use to "sign off" (television) playing the national anthem before going to the off-air signal. I'm sure people will debate it, but those were better days.....

 

[Josf]

Continuing a reply:

"That the Federation you espouse has moved on to Federal system is a line of normal progression as the Republic has grown as large and complicated as it has. This also may be accepted as for the common good."

Res-publica is not the form of the government, as would be a federation, which is a voluntary form, rather a "republic" is understandable as "for the people," meaning all the people, including the criminals. If real law is the idea then even the criminals are offered redemption, and no one can claim to justify punishing anyone without offering said redemption. The idea worked in practice so long as the group of people offering true law were not criminals themselves. When the criminals take over the idea is reversed and it is the duty of free people to oppose the criminal versions of government. That was explained well enough in the example bookmarked with the Declaration of Independence.

The public thing is the literal translation of res-publica. Res, or thing, is what the criminals claim are their targeted victims. In the criminal version of a court system, which operates today, those in power claim that those who stand under them are things, and these things, res, are guilty all the time, so there is no need to prove guilt, as that is needed is to extract whatever can be extracted from the thing that stands before the counterfeit judge in the counterfeit, summary justice, court.

That is also not a yes or no reply. That is food for thought for anyone caring to know the difference between nationalism and federalism. A Nation, if I understand the idea, is supposed to be a reference to all the people who are bound by a commonality. As such that word would apply to each State in a Federation, not the federation itself.

"Wives and PTSD are something I know, something from personal experience. Very few, at the Federal level, John McCain and possibly two or three others excepted, is something thought of as a cost of business within the world arena. Has always been that way and always will be. The statement, "War, what is it good for, absolutely nothing" rings as hollow as "We must help our injured servicemen and women"."

The last battle of the Revolutionary War, a defensive war, was fought in Massachusetts in 1787, it was later labeled Shays's Rebellion. The defenders lost. Since then every so called war perpetrated by the criminals running the false federal government have been wars of aggression for profit, which is the same exact crime perpetrated by the Nazis, and some of the Nazis, scape goats perhaps, where tried in a court, found guilty, and put to death for that same crime perpetrated by every false president since Washington.

If someone claims that the War of 1812 was a defensive war, then backing up the claim is worth the time and effort to do so, since that may lend some credence to the idea that an American version of a Nation State could have worked, had the right dictators been empowered with absolute power. There was a battle between criminals calling themselves the Federalist Party, including Washington who crushed out the regulation in Pennsylvania, which has nothing whatsoever to do with federation, and everything to do with dictatorship, then John Adams, another turn-coat false federalists who began a campaign of reestablishing financial connections with Britain and moving Americans to aid Britain against France, bookmarked with an act called The Alien and Sedition Acts, and on the other side of this Nation State internal battle were the Democrat-Republicans including Thomas Jefferson and James Madison; both working to return the criminal Nation State back into a Federation as explained well enough with their Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.

"Dogs and pony's are of no merit other than from an entertainment point of view, if that is your goal."

You get called on your superficial, and confused, viewpoint, a challenge to you, and your response is resort to baseless character assassination offered in the form of an accusation?

"Waco was the dog and pony show you have alluded to. A simple solution to most if not all confrontations of any nature involving civil authority, is to comply with the Officials requests. Deadly force directed at said officials is not a sensibile thing to do under any circumstance. Threats to one's personal self come as well as go, that is to say, they are equal in any direction."

Rule of law, had people managed to employ it, in that situation was clearly a process due to the accused, who was accused at the time of the aggressive war perpetrated upon more than 80 people in a church, would have been a presentment from a Grand Jury of peers, in that county, and then an offer for the accused to defend themselves against the accusation in a trial by jury, by the peers of the accused.

The accused was accused of failing to pay a tax on a gun. That accusation was the excuse to form an assault team of paramilitary troops whose orders were to shoot to kill those 80 people in that Church if they resisted the arrest of the accused who, again, was merely accused of failing to pay a tax on a gun. Accusations do not qualify as justification to hold someone unless the accusation is vetted through a Grand Jury. If you do not know this, then you are ignorant of the process that is known as due process, which is known as the law of the land, which is well enough explained in the Bill of Rights. Waco was Nazi style torture and mass murder, the same crimes perpetrated by the Bolsheviks, the same crimes perpetrated by the Red Coats during their war of aggression that inspired the Revolutionary Defensive War.

 

[Josf]

Continuing response:


1. Obey moral conscience (a natural law) and help defend the innocent victims from the guilty criminals: foreign and domestic.

1. Above; Agreed

2. Obey the order to shoot to kill (murder) if needed to acquire control over specific people and specific property, and do so without question.

2. Above; Compliance with legal authority and a hearing in front of an established count by the people, nullify's that point.

"Direction of force is a consequence of intended action. Remove intention and action is a mute point. The court of law is intended to rectify such areas of dispute. However, one is not assured of feeding at the public trough, continually, in any event. At some point one is expected to help one's self."

In rule of law, the idea, the ideal, everyone is afforded the same due process, and no one is above it. Redress of grievances affords anyone the opportunity to accuse anyone in public office of a crime, anytime, and if someone censors the accusation in any way other than the assembly of a Grand Jury to process the accusation, said censorship is a crime itself, as the one doing so, from an official government position, is guilty of mixed war upon the individual whose grievance (afforded access to rule of law) is censored.

The idea went as far as it did during the actual federation, to a point where the Constitution (Articles of Confederation) admitted, in writing, that Congressmen were NOT above the law.

All that changes in 1787, and now a Dictator can order the torture and mass murder of people in churches, and pardon each other, and pay each other with any loot stolen during the crime, and the survivors, if there are any, are tried and acquitted by a jury, where a judge overturns the jury's decision, and the survivors are locked up on an American version of a Gulag for failing to burn to death when ordered to do so.

 

[I amso IR]

"The question with regards to Ms. Clinton was not complicated. The question desired a simple yes or no response."

Dictators think alike? In the first place the question is extremely complicated when the question involves transfers of purchasing power that you called "ssmackers," and because that transfer of that form of purchasing power constitutes inculpatory evidence during the crime of treason, or merely "bribery," the yes or no answer was demonstrably insufficient in this case since so much is at stake during these types of crimes perpetrated by these types of criminals.

You can claim all day that your questions "desired" a simple yes or no response, and that works fine for those who agree with this type of routine criminal act perpetrated routinely by these criminals. For me, and people who agree with me, this type of transfer of "smackers," happening routinely must be opposed as a duty of free people, not covered-up, not used for entertainment, not a source of polarization into two sides that are then inspired to hate each other with mutual disrespect.

"Trial by jury of one's peers is the accepted norm within the common community which is not the same as the Federal level."

Which federal level? The idea of federation was amply demonstrated as a voluntary association in the words of the traitor John Adams, and in the actions of the people called patriots during the war that became known as the Revolutionary War. That federation ended in 1789. If you are speaking about the Nation State as it exists currently, the Nation State started in 1789, then you are speaking about a Dictatorship, also known as tyranny, which is easily measureable as such when the association is involuntary. The involuntary nature of the Nation State was demonstrated well enough during the war that became known as the Civil War; which was predictable, as an inevitability, warned about by those in opposition to the change from a federation to a Nation State: before it happened.

"That the Federation you espouse has moved on to Federal system is a line of normal progression as the Republic has grown as large and complicated as it has."

Your version of meanings of words is notable. Where do you, as an individual, arrive at your version of the meanings of these words?

A federation was clearly known as a voluntary association, in at least the words of John Adams here:

"On the other side, it was argued by J. Adams,Lee, Wythe, and others, that no gentleman had argued against the policy of the right o separation from Britain, nor had supposed it possible we should ever renew our connection; that they had only opposed its being now declared:
That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; an that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:"

As to the meaning of Republic there are words, such as words written by Thomas Paine, to work with here:

Quote:__________________________________________
Though the ancient governments present to us a miserable picture of the condition of man, there is one which above all others exempts itself from the general description. I mean the democracy of the Athenians. We see more to admire, and less to condemn, in that great, extraordinary people, than in any thing which history affords.

Mr. Burke is so little acquainted with constituent principles of government, that he confounds democracy and representation together. Representation was a thing unknown in the ancient democracies. In those the mass of the people met and enacted laws (grammatically speaking) in the first person. [note: look up the word sortition for a possible greater understanding of this time period]

Simple democracy was no other than the common hall of the ancients. It signifies the form, as well as the public principle of the government. As these democracies increased in population, and the territory extended, the simple democratical form became unwieldy and impracticable; and as the system of representation was not known, the consequence was, they either degenerated convulsively into monarchies, or became absorbed into such as then existed.

Had the system of representation been then understood, as it now is, there is no reason to believe that those forms of government, now called monarchical and aristocratical, would ever have taken place. It was the want of some method to consolidate the parts of society, after it became too populous, and too extensive for the simple democratical form, and also the lax and solitary condition of shepherds and herdsmen in other parts of the world, that afforded opportunities to those unnatural modes of government to begin.

As it is necessary to clear away the rubbish of errors, into which the subject of government has been thrown, I shall proceed to remark on some others.

It has always been the political craft of courtiers and court-governments, to abuse something which they called republicanism; but what republicanism was, or is, they never attempt to explain. Let us examine a little into this case.

The only forms of government are, the democratical, the aristocratical, the monarchical, and what is now called the representative.

What is called a republic, is not any particular form of government. It is wholly characteristical of the purport, matter, or object for which government ought to be instituted, and on which it is to be employed, res-publica, the public affairs, or the public good; or, literally translated, the public thing.

It is a word of a good original, referring to what ought to be the character and business of government; and in this sense it is naturally opposed to the word monarchy, which has a base original signification. It means arbitrary power in an individual person; in the exercise of which, himself, and not the res-publica, is the object.

Every government that does not act on the principle of a republic, or in other words, that does not make the res-publica its whole and sole object, is not a good government. Republican government is no other than government established and conducted for the interest of the public, as well individually as collectively. It is not necessarily connected with any particular form, but it most naturally associates with the representative form, as being best calculated to secure the end for which a nation is at the expense of supporting it.

Various forms of government have affected to style themselves a republic. Poland calls itself a republic, which is an hereditary aristocracy, with what is called an elective monarchy. Holland calls itself a republic which is chiefly aristocratical, with an hereditary stadtholdership.

But the government of America, which is wholly on the system of representation, is the only real republic in character and practise, that now exists. Its government has no other object than the public business of the nation, and therefore it is properly a republic; and the Americans have taken care that this, and no other, shall always be the object of the government, by their rejecting everything hereditary, and establishing government on the system of representation only.

Those who have said that a republic is not a form of government calculated for countries of great extent, mistook, in the first place, the business of a government for a form of government; for the res-publica equally appertains to every extent of territory and population. And, in the second place, if they meant any thing with respect to form, it was the simple democratical form, such as was the mode of government in the ancient democracies, in which there was no representation. The case therefore, is not, that a republic cannot be extensive, but that it cannot be extensive on the simple democratical form; and the question naturally presents itself, What is the best form of government for conducting the RES-PUBLICA, or the PUBLIC BUSINESS of a nation, after it becomes too extensive and populous for the simple democratical form?

It cannot be monarchy, because monarchy is subject to an objection of the same amount to which the simple democratical form was subject.

It is possible that an individual may lay down a system of principles, on which government shall be constitutionally established to any extent of territory. This is no more than an operation of the mind, acting by its own powers. But the practise upon those principles, as applying to the various and numerous circumstances of a nation, its agriculture, manufacture, trade, commerce, etc., requires a knowledge of a different kind, and which can be had only from the various parts of society.

It is an assemblage of practical knowledge, which no one individual can possess; and therefore the monarchical form is as much limited, in useful practise, from the incompetency of knowledge, as was the democratical form, from the multiplying of population. The one degenerates, by extension, into confusion; the other, into ignorance and incapacity, of which all the great monarchies are an evidence. The monarchical form, therefore, could not be a substitute for the democratical, because it has equal inconveniences.

Much less could it when made hereditary. This is the most effectual of all forms to preclude knowledge. Neither could the high democratical mind have voluntarily yielded itself to be governed by children and idiots, and all the motley insignificance of character, which attends such a mere animal system, the disgrace and the reproach of reason and of man.

As to the aristocratical form, it has the same vices and defects with the monarchical, except that the chance of abilities is better from the proportion of numbers, but there is still no security for the right use and application of them.

Referring, then, to the original simple democracy, it affords the true data from which government on a large scale can begin. It is incapable of extension, not from its principle, but from the inconvenience of its form; and monarchy and aristocracy, from their incapacity. Retaining, then, democracy as the ground, and rejecting the corrupt systems of monarchy and aristocracy, the representative system naturally presents itself; remedying at once the defects of the simple democracy as to form, and the incapacity of the other two with respect to knowledge.

Simple democracy was society governing itself without the aid of secondary means. By ingrafting representation upon democracy, we arrive at a system of government capable of embracing and confederating all the various interests and every extent of territory and population; and that also with advantages as much superior to hereditary government, as the republic of letters is to hereditary literature.

It is on this system that the American government is founded. It is representation ingrafted upon democracy. It has fixed the form by a scale parallel in all cases to the extent of the principle. What Athens was in miniature, America will be in magnitude. The one was the wonder of the ancient world; the other is becoming the admiration and model of the present. It is the easiest of all the forms of government to be understood, and the most eligible in practise; and excludes at once the ignorance and insecurity of the hereditary mode, and the inconvenience of the simple democracy.

It is impossible to conceive a system of government capable of acting over such an extent of territory, and such a circle of interests, as is immediately produced by the operation of representation. France, great and popular as it is, is but a spot in the capaciousness of the system. It adapts itself to all possible cases. It is preferable to simple democracy even in small territories. Athens, by representation, would have outrivaled her own democracy.

That which is called government, or rather that which we ought to conceive government to be, is no more than some common center, in which all the parts of society unite. This cannot be accomplished by any method so conducive to the various interests of the community, as by the representative system.

It concentrates the knowledge necessary to the interests of the parts, and of the whole. It places government in a state of constant maturity. It is, as has been already observed, never young, never old. It is subject neither to nonage, nor dotage.
_____________________________________________________________

That may not be what is desired for those who desire sound bites or yes or no answers.

IamsoIR reponds

In my humble opinion, I cannot for the life of me, comprehend the avoidance you present to the simple question asked of you. I admitted that the question was not in line with the conversation being indulged. The question might have been, do you feel that a Corvette sports car is worth 70,000 dollars, in your personal opinion. Yes or no would simply tell me how much you value a sports car. I in no way, shape or form included a "why" in that request. I personally, do not wish to pay 70,000 dollars for a Corvette and would respond, no! As to the remainder of your statement, it has been read and I am dwelling upon it.

 

[Josf]

I cannot afford a Corvette priced at 70,000 units of something resembling money. When anyone asks me any question concerning one of the most evil people ever to exist in human time, I will express my viewpoint about said evil individual as I see fit. I do not engage in communications where my side of the communication is boxed into a multiple choice answer. Why would I give up my liberty to speak my mind in such a manner as a multiple choice answer concerning such a serious matter as the most evil people ever currently perpetrating the most evil crimes ever?

 

[I amso IR]

I cannot afford a Corvette priced at 70,000 units of something resembling money. When anyone asks me any question concerning one of the most evil people ever to exist in human time, I will express my viewpoint about said evil individual as I see fit. I do not engage in communications where my side of the communication is boxed into a multiple choice answer. Why would I give up my liberty to speak my mind in such a manner as a multiple choice answer concerning such a serious matter as the most evil people ever currently perpetrating the most evil crimes ever?

I amso IR, responds

Josf, totally away from the intent of this thread, I sense that I am enjoying your company. The ability to induce thought, comprehension, and learning are nothing short of genius, of sorts. I am not in a position of thought to respond to our conversation, as of yet. Take care, my friend, and as the "Terminator" said, "I'll be back". Oh, and the guy in the fore ground of my icon, yep, that is me, an old goat.

 

[Moonglow]

This great nation was a diverse nation when it was born...That is what make the USA so great, is the fact that anyone from around the world could come here and start a life of hope and progress...
I am not a cynical as you fellows cause I am an optimist....And this nation has had a history of bickering except when a common foe threatened the USA...That is not unusual with humans....But to think this nation is and was only here for WASP's is a detriment to the inner strength which has given the USA the ability to over come obstacles and enemies...

 

[ABikerSailor]

Most people don't pay attention to what is going on in this country, otherwise if they did, they'd make some serious changes instead of going with the okey doke fed to them by corporate interests.

And...................if you don't pay attention to something, how can you be proud of it?

 

[Josf]

"Josf, totally away from the intent of this thread, I sense that I am enjoying your company. The ability to induce thought, comprehension, and learning are nothing short of genius, of sorts. I am not in a position of thought to respond to our conversation, as of yet. Take care, my friend, and as the "Terminator" said, "I'll be back". Oh, and the guy in the fore ground of my icon, yep, that is me, an old goat."

I am extremely fortunate for many reasons, not limited to those rare occasions when agreement is expressed in words.

The Topic can be limited in any way you see fit, and all that would be needed for me to agree to avoid posting in this limited topic is a request to do so. While off on another Topic I found yet another past use of the term Nation in words that may help this topic stay on track according to the intentions of the OP (perhaps not):

AntiFederalist Papers Paper 4 Freedom Documents

"The Confederation, this despised government, merits, in my opinion, the highest encomium--it carried us through a long and dangerous war; it rendered us victorious in that bloody conflict with a powerful nation; it has secured us a territory greater than any European monarch possesses--and shall a government which has been thus strong and vigorous, be accused of imbecility, and abandoned for want of energy? Consider what you are about to do before you part with the government. Take longer time in reckoning things; revolutions like this have happened in almost every country in Europe; similar examples are to be found in ancient Greece and ancient Rome- -instances of the people losing their liberty by their own carelessness and the ambition of a few. We are cautioned . . . against faction and turbulence. I acknowledge that licentiousness is dangerous, and that it ought to be provided against. I acknowledge, also, the new form of government may effectually prevent it. Yet there is another thing it will as effectually do- -it will oppress and ruin the people."

A nation of criminals glorifying their power to enslave everyone including themselves can be compared to a nation of defenders (federated states) happy to live and let live or, if needed, defend each other effectively against all enemies foreign and domestic (such as said Clinton clan or Bush clan for that matter).