-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Restore America Project
- Thread starter NHMI
- Start date
*Sigh*
I know. People fail to see that equilibrium is a necessity. The reason why we are in so much trouble today is because there is no equilibrium anymore.
We are moving quickly towards total government and there is no personal freedom to be found in tyranny by the wealthy.
This is well documented in the halls of history.
No argument there!
We can learn from the past without slavishly emulating it though, is what I'm saying..
FreeMan
Member
Hey NHMI, I've managed to have a closer look at the 'Restore America Plan'. Everything is clear except :-
Which strategies are we talking about here, Securities Act 1933? I'd like some more details as I'm trying to figure out exactly which strategy you guys intend to mirror.
Also this bit needs elaborating:-
Restore America Plan said:
Which strategies are we talking about here, Securities Act 1933? I'd like some more details as I'm trying to figure out exactly which strategy you guys intend to mirror.
Also this bit needs elaborating:-
I'm interested what the US Armed Forces had to say on love, peace and equality.Restore America Plan said:
We need some serious pain in US to set things right, avoiding it only prolongs the inevitable.
Luckily it was written in English.... it has tons of supporting papers explaining the reasons for each amendment....
And the problems started when the Courts decided... is isn't necessarily what is means......
Its very simple to read and understand.. and its very clear where the Gov has WAY OVER STEPPED....
Sorry if you want to throw something out that created the remenants of what we have today.. but you look back through history and compare us to any other country WITHOUT a COnst.... just ask a U.K.er or a Canadian..
You are so used to believing what is being done by government is legal under the Constitution you fall in line when they tell you... it means this or that...
READ IT YOURSELF....... ITS NOT WRITTEN IN LEGALEASE THAT LAWS TODAY ARE...
It's coming. Someone is going to get caught with the hot potato of black hole debt. Systemic Market Risk.
It's the same as a market atom bomb as such was in 1929. Except now we are pumping out fiat currency into the black hole. You and your kids futures.
A Double-Dip Recession is Inevitable
Residential property prices in the UK at a virtual standstill and falling in London
U.S. housing market meltdown not over yet: Zandi
Sugar coated by the media for mass consumption.
Toxic derivative market is just a scam. This is going be nasty. Sorry, I tell it like I see it.
History doesn't lie and we are in uncharted territory at the moment.
Um... you're actually a Liberty-arian. You're for Liberty... not Liberal.
First... there shouldn't be any Social Services being offered by the federal govt. That is "Individual Welfare".... not "General Welfare".
Second.... Illegal Aliens? SAYS WHO!? The Rat Bastards(TM) that put immigration restrictions into place?? This country was BUILT by people who came to America to be a FREE individual. They came here to escape the tyranny and oppression from their home country.
THESE PEOPLE are the LIFEBLOOD of America... because THEY understand what it is to be FREE. Don't get all twitterpated because you believe they're coming here for "programs".
America is full of people who do not know their rights and haven't ever had to fight for them. They're the ones that are giving away their rights to the govt. So dumb. Here's a link... download it for some S&G.
If you're going to get pissed... get pissed for the right reasons. Want to know your rights? Check out this link and Educate Yourself
The only way things will get better is through the spread of the correct information. THE TRUTH! Educate Yourself... then Educate Your Neighbor!
Don't join any groups that are for liberty though..... they're being put on the terrorist watch list as militant groups.
Stay Safe!
FreeMan
Member
Totally right bro, but I've had no reply to my earlier questions so I suspect we have another case of sheep following. I don't mean this in a derogative nature, but following anothers path without fully comprehending it is just as productive as following the statutes.
I know whoever put the site together knows the deal, but I suspect most that sign up will not... and so the nasty process of leading the blind starts all over again. Freeman is very dangerous if you dive in without full comprehension, but I guess it really is crunch time and some are ready to walk away from the bullshit regardless of consequence. I take my hat off to thee
It's positive what these guys are doing, regardless of the religious undertone. I'm not a fan of religion myself, especially when it's not being addressed in a mythological capacity (you know Jesus was a psilocybin mushroom right?), but like it or not our laws are based on the King James bible. It's actually a pretty good read if you hit it from a lawful angle.
Declare your sovereignty and stand under your own law.
Peace all
Blckbrd
Member
In theory, true ... BUT during the era constructing and establishing America, the immigrants did not arrive expecting something for nothing ... goods and services were not free and were not expected to be. Earn money, barter, live off the land or ... starve. Fellow immigrants and citizens and neighbors were not forced to provide for those who couldn't or wouldn't provide for themselves.
In our "enlightened" era, "we" (whoever that is) apparently can't stomach such standards and now have made ourselves responsible for the general welfare of all who reside within our borders, even if that means bankrupting our families, our towns, and our nation.
An analogy is you - you and your family - can't pay the mortgage, are having a hard time finding income, are behind in the bills, have mounting debt, and yet you see others camping in your yard or around your town who are struggling and maybe even suffering SO you break out your few remaining credit cards and max them out to pay for the wants of others when you can't even afford your own family's necessities.
We need to Restore America or accept its inevitable failure.
this movement has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative; it has everything to do with personal freedom. Ever read the book 1984? ever seen minority report? London is already there. America is on the way.
I disagree with your bible comments though. The bible is not the moral fabric of society, and it never has been. More violence and murder has been carried out in the name of Christ than can be recorded. Billions dead through out time due to Monotheism.
I disagree with your bible comments though. The bible is not the moral fabric of society, and it never has been. More violence and murder has been carried out in the name of Christ than can be recorded. Billions dead through out time due to Monotheism.
There is a reason why that book was written in 1948, but seems so prophetic today.
Orwell knew where this World Oligarchy Rule was going. People can't wrap their heads around the fact that is has been planned for DECADES.
We are too consumed with a daily lives to see the big picture.
It's completely different from religious fundamentalism. The Constitution is based on political science and philosophy.
You are basically stating that history never has any value. Which is the crying call for Progressives.
We've been sold a lie that you as a human are more evolved somehow than 200 years ago. That history is not important. That attitude is no different from religious institution brainwashing that flies in the face of logical thinking IMO.
You are just a human at this point in space time. Still a human. Not some superhuman such that your past experiences have no bearing on your future endeavors.
C
cork144
new world order = old british rule renamed,
you americans are lucky as fuck to have defeated us and have had that constituional bill of rights written, while brits would be so lucky to have such a bill.
if you honestly feel like your a true american, then youll get informed about the new world order and what it means for all of humanity,
america was the world leader untill your leaders shipped off your industry to china and i feel its because most americans took their freedoms for advantage,
time for a wakeup call, sniff the roses and realise you have to fight tryanny, before you americans completely lose what made your country great.
FYI drugs wont become legal because the NWO needs illegal money to find their illegal activitys, your congress is who allocates money so these criminal aspects of your goverment cant go through congress, they gotta use the drug money.
the only person who can defend your rights is you, so get involved and lets make a world wide revolution to this fractional reserve banking system thats enslaving us through perpitual debt.
you americans are lucky as fuck to have defeated us and have had that constituional bill of rights written, while brits would be so lucky to have such a bill.
if you honestly feel like your a true american, then youll get informed about the new world order and what it means for all of humanity,
america was the world leader untill your leaders shipped off your industry to china and i feel its because most americans took their freedoms for advantage,
time for a wakeup call, sniff the roses and realise you have to fight tryanny, before you americans completely lose what made your country great.
FYI drugs wont become legal because the NWO needs illegal money to find their illegal activitys, your congress is who allocates money so these criminal aspects of your goverment cant go through congress, they gotta use the drug money.
the only person who can defend your rights is you, so get involved and lets make a world wide revolution to this fractional reserve banking system thats enslaving us through perpitual debt.
Thank you! I love your sig as well...
"whether you believe in the Illuminati or not, whether you take the time to listen to so called conspiracy theories or not, there are some things that should be clearly understood by all, these are not conspiracy theories by any stretch of the imagination, they are well documented, quite traceable and very provable facts."
Educate Yourself America! Then Educate Your Neighbor!
Preacher
Member
If you're going to use Constitutional laws and ideas as the foundation, it'd help knowing why the government's deluded itself into thinking it operates legally.
First up is the CSA of 1970 of course. It's considered legal because of the single convention on narcotic drugs, same year. Right after US v. Leary, how fascinating. We (the government, definitely not the people!) signed an international treaty, which the Constitution holds is higher than itself. There was no other way they could've done it, Prohibition used amendments because they had to and that was majorly small-scale shit compared to the CSA. Sounds entirely seedy yet entirely legal, right? Almost. The convention's findings not supporting that act is a good place to start, as that argument does hold some merit.
Read Gonzales v. Raich. It's about medical weed, the CSA, and most importantly, states' rights and how they pretty much don't exist any more. 5-4 vote with very obvious logical bullshit on the majority's side. Since fucking when did Kantian ethics actually make sense in the legal process?
Mandatory minimums are a good thing to attack- our Declaration was very clearly borrowed from John Locke's teachings and he explained the purpose of the court system is to provide discretion in the law. A law can be and often is applied unjustly against the intent of that law and the court system reviews cases on an individual basis in order to punish the wicked and pardon those who've committed no injustice. And the judges HAVE to work independent of politics. This is why Justices have lifetime appointments- no threat of being affected by the political process ie removed for unpopular interpretations. Mandatory minimums subvert discretion and insert politics into the courts. That shit ain't what this country was about.
Look at the medical necessity defense. In California Raich did manage to set precedent saying a dire medical necessity is a valid (national-level) Constitutional defense to weed charges (though sadly she did it in the process of failing to get an injunction against the police). I think if the medical necessity defense works in a high enough court- note that it hasn't yet, it's merely established that it will- the precedent just might finally put the Schedule I status of cannabis under judicial review, something LONG overdue.
Hop on over to the ol' sadmap to see how the Court's own words can so very easily be used against itself regarding no-knock raids. "An epidemic of isolated incidents". Too true. Assuming the Court somehow grants a goddamn writ of certiori to hear this case again, I think they'll reverse their precedent. Hell, there's a lot of shit the police do that flies in the face of unreasonable search and seizure and the drug war is the main vehicle to this erosion of rights. I've been myself searched (my car) due to a false positive from a drug dog then arrested for a steak knife of all things. By my count there's at least three unconstitutional things in that one sentence, and one currently illegal one for good measure- I wasn't the owner of the knife, part of the criteria for possession.
Purely legal arguments aside, there's still a good deal of problems when it comes to the philosophical purpose of law. You won't find this in any dictionary legal or otherwise but a former professor/lawyer/prosecutor of mine gave me the best definition of crime I've ever heard: "a tort against society as a whole". Let's see what fits that. Violent crimes? Yep. Property crimes? Definitely. Traffic laws? Usually yes. Possession of life-endangering items like explosives? Indeed. Smoking flowers at home? Well maybe if it makes niggers go crazy and rape white women... wait a minute this isn't the 1930s. Hell no having flowers is not a tort against society. His simplified version of crime is also one of the best I've heard: "my rights end where your rights begin". He went on to say one of those rights is for the government to simply leave you alone. I admire his ability to communicate such powerful ideas so briefly.
Drug law, especially regarding cannabis, is so fucking full of cracks that it becomes pretty clear what's going on. Those government officials who believe in it do so only because they want to so very badly. As usual they rationalize and justify stances that pure unbiased reason would eviscerate them for having.
(by the way, the aforementioned professor actually was a prohibitionist. I need to have/record a personal debate with him one of these days, I just might know a thing or two about the subject)
First up is the CSA of 1970 of course. It's considered legal because of the single convention on narcotic drugs, same year. Right after US v. Leary, how fascinating. We (the government, definitely not the people!) signed an international treaty, which the Constitution holds is higher than itself. There was no other way they could've done it, Prohibition used amendments because they had to and that was majorly small-scale shit compared to the CSA. Sounds entirely seedy yet entirely legal, right? Almost. The convention's findings not supporting that act is a good place to start, as that argument does hold some merit.
Read Gonzales v. Raich. It's about medical weed, the CSA, and most importantly, states' rights and how they pretty much don't exist any more. 5-4 vote with very obvious logical bullshit on the majority's side. Since fucking when did Kantian ethics actually make sense in the legal process?
Mandatory minimums are a good thing to attack- our Declaration was very clearly borrowed from John Locke's teachings and he explained the purpose of the court system is to provide discretion in the law. A law can be and often is applied unjustly against the intent of that law and the court system reviews cases on an individual basis in order to punish the wicked and pardon those who've committed no injustice. And the judges HAVE to work independent of politics. This is why Justices have lifetime appointments- no threat of being affected by the political process ie removed for unpopular interpretations. Mandatory minimums subvert discretion and insert politics into the courts. That shit ain't what this country was about.
Look at the medical necessity defense. In California Raich did manage to set precedent saying a dire medical necessity is a valid (national-level) Constitutional defense to weed charges (though sadly she did it in the process of failing to get an injunction against the police). I think if the medical necessity defense works in a high enough court- note that it hasn't yet, it's merely established that it will- the precedent just might finally put the Schedule I status of cannabis under judicial review, something LONG overdue.
Hop on over to the ol' sadmap to see how the Court's own words can so very easily be used against itself regarding no-knock raids. "An epidemic of isolated incidents". Too true. Assuming the Court somehow grants a goddamn writ of certiori to hear this case again, I think they'll reverse their precedent. Hell, there's a lot of shit the police do that flies in the face of unreasonable search and seizure and the drug war is the main vehicle to this erosion of rights. I've been myself searched (my car) due to a false positive from a drug dog then arrested for a steak knife of all things. By my count there's at least three unconstitutional things in that one sentence, and one currently illegal one for good measure- I wasn't the owner of the knife, part of the criteria for possession.
Purely legal arguments aside, there's still a good deal of problems when it comes to the philosophical purpose of law. You won't find this in any dictionary legal or otherwise but a former professor/lawyer/prosecutor of mine gave me the best definition of crime I've ever heard: "a tort against society as a whole". Let's see what fits that. Violent crimes? Yep. Property crimes? Definitely. Traffic laws? Usually yes. Possession of life-endangering items like explosives? Indeed. Smoking flowers at home? Well maybe if it makes niggers go crazy and rape white women... wait a minute this isn't the 1930s. Hell no having flowers is not a tort against society. His simplified version of crime is also one of the best I've heard: "my rights end where your rights begin". He went on to say one of those rights is for the government to simply leave you alone. I admire his ability to communicate such powerful ideas so briefly.
Drug law, especially regarding cannabis, is so fucking full of cracks that it becomes pretty clear what's going on. Those government officials who believe in it do so only because they want to so very badly. As usual they rationalize and justify stances that pure unbiased reason would eviscerate them for having.
(by the way, the aforementioned professor actually was a prohibitionist. I need to have/record a personal debate with him one of these days, I just might know a thing or two about the subject)
How about addressing the slavery issue? How about the rights of women as people instead of practically property? The treatment of the natives whose land we stole?
I'm not the one treating a bunch of dead white men as gods here...
Have you gone back and re-read what you wrote yet? I mean... after re-reading what you quoted from SpasticGramps?
I don't know if it was intentional or not... but I am unable to make a connection between what you quoted and whatever it was you typed there. Wow.
I'm not treating them as Gods. I'm acknowledging that the spirit of what they wrote was good.
You, maybe unknowingly, are more than happy to treat TODAY's men as Gods. You bow down as slaves the FED everyday, but don't see it.
I bow to nothing except the principle of freedom for all people.
Progressive's, in general, act like they want nothing more than to bow down to government's comprised of men who tell them "this is in your best interest."
The men of yesterday were bad, but today's leaders are great lol. Is that your argument?
I'm realist I bow to nature and principle. You're an idealist, you bow to whatever the government says is best for you.
May sound mean, but that's an academically valid statement when talking political science.
Last edited:
